Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Chester Water Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Sunderland Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the details by which he arrived at his estimate of the additional expenditure of £520,000 per annum involved in the establishment of federation in India, and also of the similar sum involved in the establishment of 11 autonomous Provinces?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to pages 49 to 51 of Volume III, Records of the Joint Select Committee, Session 1932–33.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has been in recent communication with the Princes or any of them regarding the advisability of postponing the consideration of the Clauses of the Bill affecting them, and how the matter now stands?

Sir S. HOARE: I have had no recent communication with the Princes on this subject. Soon after the Bill was published, the Princes requested that they might be given more time to study the details of the Bill. I had regretfully to point out that the exigencies of the Parliamentary time-table made it impossible
to delay the various stages of the Bill, but I assured them that there would be opportunities in the course of the discussions to consider any suggestions that they might wish to put forward.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Will the Minister be willing to consider, for the Report stage, any suggested Amendments?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. We are dealing with every suggestion as we proceed with the Committee stage.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the Minister not aware that the Princes have expressed their great regret that this Bill should be rushed through the House of Commons before their criticisms had been received?

EXPENDITURE.

Miss RATHBONE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India what has been the amount of the charges imposed during the past three years upon the revenues of British India in respect of expenditure incurred in the exercise of the responsibilities of the paramount power towards the Indian States; and whether the Legislative Assembly are permitted to discuss this expenditure?

Sir S. HOARE: The expenditure referred to is merged with other expenditure in the budget of the foreign and political department of the Government of India, and I am therefore unable to give a precise answer to the hon. Member's question. On a rough estimate made in 1932 by the Government of India, the expenditure attributable to the conduct of relations with the States then amounted to about Rs.85 lakhs, or a little over £600,000 a year. This expenditure is not subject to the vote of the Indian Legislature but is open to discussion therein by leave of the Governor-General.

PROVINCIAL BUDGETS.

Sir A. KNOX: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many of the nine Provinces of British India showed a deficit on their last annual budget; and what was the total sum involved in British currency?

Sir S. HOARE: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not true that there are six Provinces in deficit?

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend will see the facts set out in the Paper I have sent to him. A satisfactory feature is that, although wage cuts have been restored, the position is not worse substantially this year than it was last.

Following is the reply:

The following table indicates the amount, in rupees and sterling, of the surpluses and deficits anticipated in the Provinces of British India, other than Burma, according to the Budget Estimates for 1935–36 as presented to the Legislatures:


Surpluses:
Rs. lakhs.
£000s.


Madras
5
36


Punjab
9
64


Total
14
100


Deficits:




Bombay
2
15


Bengal
69
519


United Provinces
17
130


Bihar and Orissa
14
108


Central Provinces
2
12


Assam
56
419


North-West Frontier Province.
12
89


Total
172
1,292

TEHEOEISM (BENGAL).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of Bengal have recently empowered 22 district magistrates of 22 districts in Bengal out of 27 to exercise the powers specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, and have also invested with the power of a special magistrate 11 magistrates of the first class; and whether this extension of powers is due to a strengthening of the terrorist movement?

Sir S. HOARE: I have seen the relevant notifications in the Calcutta Gazette. They appear to be purely a matter of administration and there is no reason to take them as an indication that there has been any strengthening of the terrorist movement.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any assurance that the movement is not increasing in Bengal or elsewhere?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not like to give an assurance about a movement of this character. I can, however, say that outrages have tended to fall off, and that the measures that we are taking appear to be more and more effective.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Has the right hon. Gentleman proof that recruiting for the movement has ceased in Bengal?

Sir S. HOARE: The Noble Lady had better put down a question of that kind.

COMMUNIST ACTIVITY, CALCUTTA.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, owing to the continuance of labour unrest among dock, tramway, and other workers in Calcutta, numerous processions have been marching through the city bearing banners with Communist emblems and the sign of the hammer and sickle; and whether this indicates an extension of Communist activity in India as compared with the situation disclosed in his memorandum in Volume II, Part II of the report of the Joint Committee?

Sir S. HOARE: I am aware that there have been certain demonstrations of the kind referred to. The Government of India and local governments have exercised their powers under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, and other laws to deal with recent attempts to renew Communist activity. I have no reason to consider the position more serious now than when I circulated the note on terrorism to the Joint Select Committee.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the wages paid to the workmen?

Sir S. HOARE: Obviously, that question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government are not, under the ostensible pretext of suppressing Communist propaganda, suppressing the rights of the Indian workers?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly. That is the case.

BURMA (TRADE RELATIONS).

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether negotiations have yet been commenced
for an ad interim trade agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Burma; and what steps are being taken to safeguard the interest of the trade of the United Kingdom with Burma?

Sir S. HOARE: Conversations have been in progress during the past three months between representatives of the Government of Burma and the Government of India with a view to concerting an arrangement, valid for a specified period after separation, the main purpose of which is to regulate the trade relations between Burma and the rest of India which might otherwise be disturbed by their political separation.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question regarding the steps taken to safeguard the interests of the trade of the United Kingdom?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not hear.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I asked whether the Secretary of State can answer the last clause of my question which relates to the steps taken to safeguard the interests of the trade of the United Kingdom with Burma?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, certainly. This and other matters, which are relevant to the questions primarily under discussion, are being kept in mind.

BURMA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (PRESIDENT).

Sir R. CRADDOCK: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that disorderly scenes, directed against the President of the Burma Legislative Council a few months ago, led to the calling out of the police by the President and to the prorogation of the council by the Governor; that on the reassembly of the council similar scenes occurred, resulting in the censure of the President of the Council; that the Governor subsequently confirmed the removal of the President, although expressing disapproval of it; and whether, in view of these incidents, he will consider restoring the original rule by which the President was appointed by the Governor?

Sir S. HOARE: I am aware of the incidents to which my hon. Friend alludes. The suggestion conveyed in the last part of the question would entail legislation by Parliament to amend the relevant section of the Government of India Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH EMBASSY PLATE AND FURNITURE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House as to the date when the latest diplomatic representations were made to the Russian Soviet Government with regard to the robbery of plate and furniture, of the value of over £12,000, from the British Embassy in Petrograd in 1918 by officials of the Soviet Government; what was the nature of such representations; what was the reply made by the Soviet Government; and what further action the British Government propose to take in the matter?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): The last written representations on this subject were made on the 21st October, 1931, when a list of articles still missing was presented to the Soviet authorities with an enquiry whether any of them had been identified. Since then further verbal representations in the same sense have frequently been made by His Majesty's Embassy at Moscow, but no answer has been received to any of these representations, and the Soviet Government are being asked for a definite reply.

Sir W. DAVISON: In any representation which may be made to Moscow, by representatives of the Government, will this matter be pressed, considering that this was a theft from the British Embassy by officials of the Soviet Government?

Mr. EDEN: I have already explained that my sympathies are very much on the side of my hon. Friend.

Mr. THORNE: Can the Minister give any reason why no action has been taken between 1918 and 1931?

LORD PRIVY SEAL'S VISIT.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in connection with his visit to Russia, the Lord Privy Seal will be instructed to discuss the question of Manchuria and the action and attitude of the League of Nations in relation thereto?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. I do not think this subject will have any particular relevance to the matters which will be under discussion.

Captain MACDONALD: Can my right hon. Friend say what is going to be under discussion?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

MINORITY TREATIES (POLAND).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the Polish Government's repudiation for the time being of its obligations under the minority treaties, what steps he is taking to secure, during the negotiations on this subject, that the rights of the minorities concerned are not being neglected or in any way prejudiced?

Mr. EDEN: As the hon. Member has already been informed, my right hon. Friend made plain the position of His Majesty's Government on this question at the Assembly of the League of Nations last September. The minority procedure is still in force and cannot be modified by unilateral action on the part of any one State. The difficulty that has arisen is one for the Council of the League as a whole.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to take some steps to bring the Polish Government into line on this matter?

Mr. EDEN: That matter is essentially one for the Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (MANDATES).

Captain MACDONALD: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has been informed of the future intentions of Japan in relation to their mandates created under the League of Nations; and whether the League itself has now received any information on the subject from the Japanese Government?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. As regards the latter part of the question I am not aware that any communication on the subject has been made to the League of Nations by the Japanese Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the air committee set up by the Disarmament Conference last met; and what steps have been taken by the Government to expedite further meetings of this committee?

Mr. EDEN: On the 20th November last the Chairman of the Committee (which last met on the 17th March, 1933) stated
that it had been impossible for him to reconvene the Committee with any conviction that it could do any useful work at present. It will be appreciated that progress in this Committee must depend on the participation of all the Great Powers concerned, and His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to create conditions in which the Committee can usefully resume its meetings.

Mr. WILMOT: In view of the vital importance of this phase of disarmament, will the Government take some fresh initiative to secure an early meeting of the Committee?

Mr. EDEN: It is no use the Committee meeting if the Committee cannot do useful work. We are seeking to make the necessary international arrangements to enable the Committee to meet usefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR-SHIP "OMAR."

Brigadier-General NATION: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information regarding the case of the Hull-owned motor-ship "Omar," detained by the Finnish authorities?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that the Finnish Government will see that the provisions of the Liquor Smuggling Convention are brought to the notice of the supreme court when the case is heard and that the court will be asked to take the Convention into consideration in deciding the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMEL CONVENTION.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the statute of Memel is being constantly flouted by the Lithuanian authorities; and whether he will take steps, in conjunction with the other signatory Powers, to have reestablished the constitutional position which was legally laid down for the Memel territory by the Memel Convention signed by Great Britain?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether he is aware that this and similar questions about Memel have been hawked among Members of this House by German agents?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: If I have any right to answer that question, may I say that that is deliberately untrue, so far as I am concerned?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It was sent to me.

Mr. EDEN: It was agreed recently that representations in regard to the situation in Memel should be made by His Majesty's Government, the French Government and the Italian Government to the Lithuanian Government.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Can my right hon. Friend say if this joint action will enable representatives of the people of Memel to have the right to discuss the government of their own territory?

Mr. EDEN: I would like to see that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (LOAN PROPOSALS).

Mr. MANDER: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now any statement to make with reference to a loan to China; whether any proposal by China has been made to other Powers on the subject; and whether an effort will be made to assist China by such a loan with as large a participation by different countries as seems practicable?

Mr. EDEN: The situation has not changed since the date of the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn) on the 6th March, to which I would refer the hon. Member. I am not in a position to say what communications may have passed between China and other Powers. As regards the last part of the question, the policy of His Majesty's Government cannot be determined until the Chinese Government have stated their views.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Japanese Government will not be permitted to veto any loan proposal by other Powers?

Mr. EDEN: That question does not seem to arise out of the answer I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. J. WILMOT: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
the establishment of a neutral zone on the frontier of Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland will be followed by the establishment of a boundary commission; and whether he can give any information on the composition of such a commission?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that the object of the negotiations now in progress is to pave the way for the delimitation of the frontier. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will the frontier be delimited by means of a boundary commission?

Mr. EDEN: It is not for us to express any view on the matter. It is, in the first place, a subject for the two parties between themselves.

Mr. JONES: Could not the Government offer a friendly suggestion?

Mr. EDEN: We are always ready to make friendly suggestions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR POLICY.

Mr. MANDER: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in connection with the Anglo-French proposals for an European air pact, any undertaking has been given to the French Government that this country is prepared to enter into a mutually protective arrangement with France alone in the event of the wider scheme including Germany not proving possible to negotiate?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. MANDER: In the event of it being impracticable to obtain German cooperation, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be desirable to get together as many States as are prepared to work together?

Mr. EDEN: That is quite another matter, which does not arise now.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITAHY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: 21.
asked the Minister of Pensions, with reference to Section 3 (1) of the War Pensions Act, 1915, whether he is now in a position to inform the House of the results of the
arrangements made by his Department since the War for the welfare, training and employment of children in order to carry out the requirements of the Section?

Major LEIGHTON: 22.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to report the result of his inquiries from local war pensions committees as to their experience of the steps taken by his Department, with their help, to provide for the welfare, training and employment of the children of men killed or disabled in the War?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have had very satisfactory accounts from all parts of the country of the work for these children which has been done over the past 18 years by the Ministry of Pensions and its associated bodies—the Special Grants Committee and Local War Pensions Committees. The results have been summarised in a report which I hope to issue in a day or two.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend publish that report?

Major TRYON: Yes, Sir; I hope that it will be available in the Vote Office in the course of the week.

Oral Answers to Questions — DON VALLEY DRAINAGE SCHEME.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Ouse (Yorks) Catchment Board have reached a final decision on any scheme for dealing with the River Don; and, if so, what is the estimated cost and the total Treasury grant?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. The Ministry is still in communication with the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board concerning their application for a Government grant in respect of work on the River Don, which is estimated to cost £506,000. I understand that the work is proceeding.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the Ouse Catchment Board have now adopted the scheme, which is to cost £506,000, and
that the only outstanding point is as to a grant?

Mr. ELLIOT: The position is that we are still in communication with them.

Mr. PALING: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the work is proceeding, does he mean on this particular £506,000 scheme?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that the Don Valley drainage works are all designed so as to work in with the general protection of these areas?

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that nothing has been started in connection wih this particular scheme?

Mr. ELLIOT: As I have said, I understand that the work is proceeding. How much if it is actually connected with the scheme in dispute I should hesitate to say without notice.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the cause of the delay in approving of and proceeding with the work on the scheme is exclusively that the board are waiting for a decision on the question of a grant?

Mr. ELLIOT: I must ask my hon. Friend not to attempt to commit me to statements like that. As I have said, we are in communication. I will not go any further than that.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BACON PRICES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the price of bacon at port on the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. ELLIOT: The average declared value on importation of all bacon imported into the United Kingdom in February, 1935, was 76s. 7d. per cwt. The hon. Member will, of course, be aware that the London Provision Exchange issues each week a list of agents to wholesaler prices of the various grades and descriptions of imported bacon. This list is published in the Weekly Dairy Produce Notes of the Imperial Economic Committee and in various trade journals.

Oral Answers to Questions — POTATOES.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, what quantity of potatoes has been purchased by the
Potato Marketing Board; and whether he will say at what price these have been purchased and in what manner they are being disposed of?

Mr. ELLIOT: I regret that I am not in possession of the information desired by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENTCHARGE (ROYAL COM MISSION).

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when he expects the report of the Tithe Commission to be published?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Royal Commission on Tithe Rentcharge have not yet completed the hearing of evidence, and I am not in a position to say when their report will be ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR MAILS (BATAVIA).

Sir W. DAVISON: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General why letters posted to Batavia between Saturday afternoon and Tuesday evening in London are held till the following Saturday morning in order to go by the Imperial Air Service and are not forwarded by the Dutch airmail due to leave London on Wednesday mornings, especially having regard to the fact that no additional charge would fall on the Exchequer, as the Dutch air-mail is already subsidised in this respect by the British Government?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Air letters for the Dutch East Indies prepaid at the advertised rates are sent only by the Imperial Services which start every Saturday; but any air letter specially marked for transmission by the Dutch Air Service and prepaid at the higher postage rate rendered necessary by the higher transport charges payable is sent by that service.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that speed is of the essence of the matter in air communication; and do I understand that the stamping of a letter for conveyance by Imperial Airways would not cover transmission by the Dutch Air Service?

Sir K. WOOD: My answer gives that information.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. GARDNER: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone exchanges in the London postal districts that are being operated under the automatic system; and the number of operators, distinguishing between men and women, who have been transferred to other exchanges in consequence of this system being adopted?

Sir K. WOOD: The number of telephone exchanges in the London postal area which are being operated under the automatic system is 57. It has been found necessary to transfer approximately 820 women and 170 men to other exchanges as a consequence of the introduction of automatic working in these exchanges.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can state how many new telephone exchanges, public telephones, and telephone call-boxes have been installed in rural areas during the present calendar year?

Sir K. WOOD: The number of now telephone exchanges opened in rural areas during January and February, 1935, was nine, and the number of new kiosk call-offices opened in rural areas was 78. Figures for other kinds of public call-offices are not at present available.

TELEGRAMS (CHARGES).

Brigadier-General NATION: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his investigation into the question of telegram charges has now been concluded; and what prospects there are for a reduction of the minimum charge in the near future?

Sir K. WOOD: These investigations are being actively pursued, but have not yet been completed.

Brigadier-General NATION: Can my right hon. Friend say at about what date he will be able to give me an answer if I put down another question?

Sir K. WOOD: I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to exercise his power to withhold the facilities of the cash-on-delivery service from traders who are found to be misusing it?

Sir K. WOOD: I am considering what action can properly be taken, and I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend. I should like to emphasise, however, that any recipient of a cash-on-delivery packet who thinks he has been defrauded should report the matter to the police, and the Post Office will then give any necessary assistance with a view to a prosecution.

LETTER DELIVERIES, LONDON.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to guarantee to all city offices in block buildings the first delivery of letters in their own offices, and not as at present by depositing all letters in bulk with the caretakers of the building in which these offices exist?

Sir K. WOOD: The offices of many firms in City buildings are not open when the first delivery is made and delivery to a caretaker then is understood to be the most convenient arrangement. If my hon. Friend has any case of difficulty in mind, I shall be glad to inquire into it.

WIRELESS RECEPTION (INTERFERENCE).

Sir G. FOX: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the present number of the staff employed by him to assist owners of wireless sets in obtaining the best possible reception free from interference; what is the proportion of such number to the existing number of wireless licence holders; and how such proportion compares with that which obtained five years ago?

Sir K. WOOD: The number of staff at present employed in assisting owners of wireless sets to obtain broadcast reception free from interference—expressed in terms of full-time staff—is 200. This represents a ratio of 1 man to about 35,000 licence-holders. Five years ago the ratio was 1 to about 85,000.

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any arrangements will be made by him to provide special facilities for disabled ex-service men to watch the processions in connection with the forthcoming Jubilee?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am consulting the Commissioner of Police with a view to providing certain special facilities for disabled ex-Service men in a suitable position on the line of route.

Mr. CLEARY: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a statement on the question of extra allowances during Jubilee week for those drawing unemployment insurance benefit, having in mind the fact that public assistance committees in many areas have decided to grant such extra allowances?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Members for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) on 26th February.

Mr. CLEARY: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when it will be possible to make a statement on this question?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not think that there is any further statement to make beyond that given by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. LOGAN: Are we not to understand that further legislation is necessary; and is it not possible for legislation to be brought before the House? May we have an answer?

PUBLIC HEALTH (CHINESE EGGS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 35.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of eggs in shell imported from China into this country during the years 1933 and 1934, respectively, and the number of hundredweights of liquid and frozen eggs imported from China during the same years; and whether he is aware of the insanitary conditions under which such eggs are produced in China?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I am sending my hon. Friend an extract from the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for December, 1934, in which he will find the information desired. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers on this subject
given to my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) and Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 11th February and the 14th March, of which I am also sending him copies.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the great increase in these imports in 1934 as compared with 1933, will the Minister take into consideration the large number of ex-service men who have started poultry farming, and who are obliged to run their farms under very different conditions from those which obtain on the Chinese farms from which these eggs come?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We are, of course, only concerned with the matter from the health point of view. My hon. Friend will see from the answers what steps we are taking.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the Minister send someone out to China to see where these eggs are laid?

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, ALDRIDGE (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 36.
asked the Minister of Health of he is aware that the Staffordshire Public Assistance Committee has recently issued instructions that patients in the Aldridge urban district area shall be accommodated at Hallam Hospital, West Bromwich, instead of at Manor Hospital, Walsall, as heretofore; whether he is responsible for this decision and, if so, on what grounds was this decision made; if he is aware that this decision causes inconvenience and hardships to the poor of the district; and if he has received any protests on the matter?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. As regards the last two parts, my right hon. Friend has received a protest from the urban district council, and is in communication on the matter with the county council with whom the responsibility in the matter rests.

RIBBON DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. BOSSOM: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that without an emergency measure it will be
impossible to legally prevent a large increase in ribbon developments that will be commenced with the opening of the building season this spring, he will request all the building societies and other loaning agencies, both public and private, that are known to him to refrain from making loans to those who wish to make these ribbon developments on any arterial or other main roads?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, Sir. The course suggested would not be appropriate in view of the early introduction of legislation dealing with ribbon development.

Mr. WILMOT: Can the hon. Gentleman give some indication that this legislation will be retrospective in its effect in order to discourage ribbon building developing at a higher speed during the spring season?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My hon. Friend must await the introduction of the Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced, because we have been promised it at an early date for many weeks past?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question to the Minister of Transport.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce legislation to combat ribbon building?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald): I regret that I am unable at the moment to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 25th February last.

Mr. ADAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply said that the Bill was in course of active preparation, and will it not soon be forthcoming?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I most certainly hope so.

HOUSING (DECONTROL).

Mr. THORNE: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state how many houses have become decontrolled since the Government's last Rent Restrictions Act came into operation?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, Sir. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that no "C" class house has become decontrolled since the date named. No particulars of the number of "B" class houses which may have become decontrolled by the landlord's obtaining vacant possession are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MERSEYSIDE.

Mr. LOGAN: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour what arrangement has he made with Cammell, Laird, and Company, Birkenhead, to take a proportion of unemployed craftsmen and labourers from Liverpool to build aircraft-carrier His Majesty's Ship "Ark Royal"?

Mr. HUDSON: I have no doubt that, in engaging men for this work, the company will give full consideration to the applications of qualified men from all Merseyside districts, but I do not think that it would be practicable to arrange for the engagement of a fixed proportion of men from a particular area.

Mr. LOGAN: The question that I asked was whether any arrangement could be made; and I am anxious to know whether arrangements can be made on the Merseyside and Liverpool with regard to this particular allocation of work?

Mr. HUDSON: I said in my reply that no doubt the Company will give due consideration to qualified men on the Merseyside.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. T. SMITH: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Dorothy Firth, 17 years of age, has been refused unemployment insurance benefit by the Pontefract court of referees on the ground that she refused to accept employment as a canteen worker at Alder-shot; whether the court was fully constituted; and whether leave to appeal to the umpire was granted?

Mr. HUDSON: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

MALDIVE ISLANDS (SULTAN).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether he is aware that, as a result of the election of Prince Aggambe Manisulla to be Sultan of the Maldive Islands, grave disturbances have taken place; whether he will consider the appointment of a British resident officer for a limited period in order to investigate the present position with a view to adjusting the machinery of government, thus avoiding despotism and exploitation of the inhabitants; and whether he is in a position to make a statement in regard to the present situation of the Sultan Muhammed Shams-ud-Din, who was deposed on 2nd October after the reign of 32 years, and his son?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Governor of Ceylon has reported to me the election of the Prince in question as Sultan of the Maldive Islands. He has also reported to me that the representative of the Maldivian Government in Ceylon has informed him that the ex-Sultan and his son have accepted the position and are living quietly at Malé, the capital of the Islands; that the election was universally popular, and that the report of disturbances was unfounded.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the population of the Maldive Islands?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, 79,300.

ROYAL NAVY: HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ARK ROYAL" (SUB-CONTRACTS).

Mr. LOGAN: 42.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an allocation of sub-contracts is to be given to Merseyside firms in connection with the building of aircraft-carrier His Majesty's Ship "Ark Royal"?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The allocation of sub-contracts is primarily a matter for the shipbuilders concerned, and I have no doubt that Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Company, Limited, will give due consideration to the claims of Merseyside firms.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with Messrs. Cammell, Laird and see that such allocation does take place in regard to unemployment on the Merseyside?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIAN TIMBER.

Mr. BOSSOM: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has reached a decision concerning the fall clause in the Russian timber contract; and, if not, how long does he anticipate it will be before the decision will be made?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply ray right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) on the 14th March.

FINLAND (BRITISH FLYCATCHERS).

Marquess of CLYDESDALE (for Captain DOWER): 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the recent increased duty on British flycatchers imported from this country into Finland; and what action, if any, he proposes to take with regard to this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My attention has been drawn to the matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I am at once having inquiry made with a view to ascertaining the actual position in regard to the sale of British flycatchers in Finland.

AIR DEFENCE MEASURES.

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to give information to the public with reference to the precautionary measures designed for the protection of the civil population against the effects of bombing attacks from the air, referred to in Section 26 of the Statement relating to Defence, Cmd. 4827?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on the 1st November last, and I might add that it is proposed very shortly to begin consultations with the local authorities all over the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

IMPERIAL AIR SERVICES (AUSTRALIA).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet any information as to
when it will be possible to carry passengers regularly throughout the whole distance on the England-Australia air route?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Whilst I have not received official confirmation, I understand that it is the intention of His Majestys' Government in the Commonwealth of Australia to authorise the carriage of passengers on the Singapore-Brisbane section of the Air Route from about the middle of next month—thus completing the through service for passengers between England and Australia.

PILOT LICENCES.

Mr. WHITESIDE: 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what was the number of persons holding "A" and "B" private pilot licences during 1934?

Sir P. SASSOON: The numbers of "A" and "B" licences current on 31st December, 1934, were 2,980 and 498 respectively. Approximately 125 individuals held both types of licence.

Mr. WHITESIDE: Does that include those on the Reserve and, if so, what is the actual number of civilian pilots?

Sir P. SASSOON: The actual number of civilian pilots is about 3,250.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (PILOTS).

Mr. WHITESIDE: 49.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what was the number of pilots in the Royal Air Force during 1934?

Sir P. SASSOON: The average strength of officer and airman pilots in the Royal Air Force during 1934 was 2,701.

Mr. WHITESIDE: In view of the fact that £17,000,000 was spent on the Royal Air Force last year, will my right hon. Friend take steps to increase the number of pilots who can actually fly? £17,000,000 is a very large sum to provide for an Air Force comprising only 2,700 pilots.

Sir P. SASSOON: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have plenty of time to elaborate that argument to-morrow.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. MARTIN: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many
people have gone since 1925 from this country to Australia under settlement schemes; how many of these were from Northumberland and Durham; how many have returned after abandoning holdings; and what steps the Government take to help stranded settlers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Since 1925, inclusive, 953 settlers have proceeded from the United Kingdom to Australia under land settlement schemes. Particulars are not available as to how many of these were from Northumberland and Durham, or how many have returned after abandoning holdings. As regards settlers who are in difficulties. I am assured that they receive the same consideration as native-born Australians in the matter of relief measures. In addition, there are special settlers' welfare organisations supported by the United Kingdom and Australian Governments to which they can apply for advice and help.

Mr. MARTIN: Does my right hon. Friend think that there were adequate steps taken to help those who are in such a plight?

Mr. THOMAS: The only things that we can do have been done.

BRITISH ARMY (BARRACKS AND HUTMENTS).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the estimated cost of the modernisation of barracks and hutments for the Army?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The cost of modernising existing barracks and hutments at home and abroad, excluding India, is estimated at approximately £12,000,000.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does that mean bringing them up to the standard of the Housing Act?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. It means that no huts in the future would be used, and probably that barracks which existed in pre-war days would have to be replaced.

Mr. TINKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what period it will take to cover that expenditure?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. STOURTON: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the statement made by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that police officers, both male and female, are to be disguised as civilians when trapping motorists in the Metropolitan area, he can lay down guidance for the ordinary driver to distinguish between genuine police officers and car bandits?

Mr. J. WILMOT: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Commissioner of Police that plain clothes officers will be employed on motor-car patrol duties; and whether he will withhold his approval of this practice in view of the fact that it would contravene Section 20 of the Road Traffic Act?

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether the members of the police force detailed for patrolling the roads in the special police motor-cars for enforcing the observance of the 30-miles-per-hour speed limit in built-up areas will, on all occasions when engaged on this duty, wear a distinctive police uniform?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I am glad to have this opportunity of dealing with certain misapprehensions as to the effect of the statement issued by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. If only uniformed police were employed, their presence would no doubt be effective up to a point in preventing breaches of the law. But the police, in view of their limited numbers, cannot be everywhere and the object of the method of enforcement which is being adopted is not to set traps for unwary motorists but to put a general check on driving at excessive speed and in particular upon overtaking by persons at speeds in excess of the prescribed limit. There is no question of this method of enforcement involving any infringement of Section 20 of the
Road Traffic Act on the part of the police. I wish to make it clear that the police are entitled to patrol in plain clothes whether on foot or in vehicles. It is true that Parliament has enacted that it is not an offence for a driver of a vehicle to fail to stop on the signal of a constable if he is not in uniform, but I have no doubt that most drivers, when signalled in the manner described in the police notice, will obey the signal.

Hon. MEMBERS: Why?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps hon. Members will wait until I have finished answering the question.
If, however, a driver does not stop and cannot be overtaken, e.g., at an adjacent road intersection, the police will have to adopt other means of establishing his identity, and I would point out that those who do not stop when signalled will have no legitimate cause for complaint if they do not receive warning at the time that they are to be reported with a view to proceedings. The speed limit, of course, applies only to built-up areas and, apart from the steps which are being taken to cause police signs to be displayed, I think it is rather far fetched to suggest that in areas where the speed limit applies there is any likelihood of motorists being signalled to stop by unauthorised persons. The sole object of the arrangements which are being adopted is to make effective the intention of Parliament. The task of the police is bound in any case to be difficult. I am confident that they will have the co-operation of motorists generally in what is, after all, a measure for making the roads safer for all who use them.

Mr. WILMOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the motoring organisations have advised their members to ignore requests to stop by unauthorised persons, for obvious reasons? Does he not see that the introduction of a plain clothes patrolling system is likely to lead to undesirable results?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate how a driver when a gong is sounded behind him will be able to know that it is for him and not for some other vehicle?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will a person who has voluntarily stopped at the request of one of these apparently
plain clothes officers have the right to ask the officer to display some kind of badge or warrant?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly. Every plain clothes policeman on being asked to produce his authority must always do so. That undoubtedly will be the case here. The object of sounding the gong will be to give notice to a car passing a police car, rather than otherwise.

Mr. REMER: May I ask how a motorist can distinguish between one of these police officers and a motor bandit?

Mr. MAINWARING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the police officers are to have regard to the speed limit when endeavouring to overtake a driver?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. If they have to pursue somebody who is obviously breaking the law, they will have immunity from the speed limit.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the police to keep a sharp eye on Green Street and Plashet Road, Upton Park?

Sir W. BRASS: 55.
asked the Home Secretary the number of extra police patrol cars which his department has hired or bought in order to carry out the timing of motorists, as described in the circular issued recently by the Chief Commissioner of Police, and the estimated extra weekly cost to his department?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not in a position at present to give particulars of either numbers or cost as these will depend upon circumstances and may vary from time to time.

Sir W. BRASS: If I put a question down later, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer? The House has to vote this money, and we ought to know?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity on the Vote of Supply.

Sir W. BRASS: 56.
asked the Home Secretary at what intervals of time and over what ranges of speed the speedometers on the police-patrol cars are to be tested in order to make certain that they are always kept accurate?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The speedometers On police vehicles engaged in the enforcement of speed limits in the Metropolitan Police District are to be tested twice a day in order to ensure their accuracy. These tests will be carried out at various speeds in the neighbourhood of 30 miles per hour.

Sir W. BRASS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these speedometers vary with speed and with road conditions, and is he going to test them twice a day when they are being worked under the varying conditions under which they may be worked?

Sir G. FOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these police patrols will be using motor lorries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. LEVY: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether in all cases the motorist who is alleged to have broken the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit will be told at the time of the offence that he is to be prosecuted, so as to enable him to check the police testimony in relation to time and place and other details?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Drivers who are observed to be exceeding the speed limit will be signalled to stop. Those who comply will then be warned of the intention to report the matter with a view to the question being considered of the institution of proceedings. On the other hand, if they fail to stop they will have no legitimate cause for complaint that they were not warned at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

Mr. LEVY: Are we to understand from that reply that whether they stop or not a summons can be sent, like a bolt from the blue, without the man knowing that he has committed any offence?

Mr. LEVY: 59.
asked the Home Secretary whether any special latitude is to be given to police engaged in enforcing the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit in built-up areas to enable them to sound the warning gong after 11.30 p.m.; and if not, what method is to be employed to indicate to the private motorist that he is exceeding the limit and must stop?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Regulations made by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport contain a provision exempting
any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance, or police purposes, if the observance of the Regulations would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any likelihood of any of these vehicles being on the road in view of the speedometers having to be tested twice a day?

Mr. LEVY: 60.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to employ extra women police for the purpose of enforcing the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit in built-up areas; and if so, how many?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I am not aware of any such intention.

Sir W. BRASS: 61.
asked the Home Secretary on whom a summons will be served if a car, against the driver of which a speed-limit offence has been alleged, fails to stop when a following police car sounds its gong?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The summons would be addressed to the alleged offender and would be served on him in the usual way. If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind cases where the driver is not identified at the time because he fails to stop, steps would be taken, as at present, to ascertain his identity and service of a summons would follow in the ordinary course. I am not aware of any new difficulty which is likely to arise in this matter.

Sir W. BRASS: If a bicycle overtakes a police car, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the bicyclist is going to be summoned?

Commander BOWER: 64.
asked the Home Secretary in what way the note of the gongs or the bells to be used by police cars will differ from that of the gongs or bells which may be used by other motor vehicles to give audible warning of their approach?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The gongs that will be used on police cars in the Metropolitan Police district are electrically operated bells of the same type as those in general use on ambulances but with a distinctive note.

Sir W. BRASS: Is it not a, fact that any ordinary motorist can have a gong fitted of the same type?

Mr. MAGNAY: In that case will there not be something in the nature of sounding brass?

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES (LOITERING).

Sir G. FOX: 63.
asked the Home Secretary how many summonses have been issued against pedestrians for loitering on pedestrian crossing-places in the London area since the latter were instituted?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No summonses have been issued against pedestrians for remaining on pedestrian crossing-places longer than necessary for the purpose of crossing the road with reasonable dispatch. Up to the end of February, however, 11,210 verbal warnings were given in this connection.

Sir G. FOX: Does this not show that the Government intend only to prosecute motorists and not pedestrians?

ACCIDENT, ST. PANCRAS.

Mr. THORNE: 62.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with an accident to a workman employed by the St. Pancras Borough Council who was severely burned; whether there was any breach of regulations under the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901; whether the borough council in question put into operation the factory inspector's suggestion made in 1932; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The council have been prosecuted and fined £30, with twenty guineas cost, for a breach of the Electricity Regulations in connection with this accident.

INCOME TAX.

Sir A. KNOX: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in his coming Budget he will consider the possibility of restoring the Income Tax personal allowances to their former level?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): My right hon. Friend notes that the hon.
and gallant Member takes a rather optimistic view of the financial situation, but I must ask him to await the Budget Statement.

HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the board of directors of the Scottish Herring Producers' Association last Wednesday to the effect that though they desire a scheme for the reorganisation and regulation of the herring fishing industry to be prepared under the Herring Industry Act, they are not prepared to accept any scheme which will be operated by the Herring Board as at present constituted; and what action he has taken, or proposes to take, to deal with the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I regret that the Scottish Herring Producers' Association take exception to the composition of the Herring Industry Board. Its composition was the subject of great consideration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and myself before the names were announced in the House on the 8th March, and we decided to proceed with the formal appointment of the board on the 15th March. The question of the preparation of a scheme has now to be considered by the board, and persons affected will have an opportunity of lodging objections to any scheme submitted to Ministers.

Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is the composition of the board, not the scheme, to which the association takes exception; and will he therefore take steps to consult the association as to the particular objections they have to the men who have been nominated?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am unable to make any inquiries as to the composition of the board, which was announced after great consideration by the Ministers concerned. The producers' association after they have had a scheme submitted to them by the board will then be able, at
the proper opportunity, to make any criticism or otherwise as to the details of the scheme.

Sir M. MCKENZIE WOOD: In view of the fact that the association gave notice of their objections before the board was actually confirmed, will the right hon. Gentleman say why he did not consult them before the board was constituted?

Sir G. COLLINS: We were fully aware of the objections of the association before we made the appointments final, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that it is quite impossible at this stage to get any board which will satisfy completely all sections of this industry.

Sir M. MCKENZIE WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is not a question—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Lansbury.

GERMAN ARMY (CONSCRIPTION).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the action which His Majesty's Government propose to take having regard to the announcement made by the German Government on Saturday of the decision to adopt conscription and to increase the peace basis of the German Army to 36 divisions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have already been in communication with the French and Italian Governments on this subject, and they have instructed His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin to deliver a Note to the German Government which I understand will be presented this afternoon. I cannot, of course, make the contents of this communication public until it has been received by the German Foreign Minister, but arrangements are being made that, as soon as I have heard from Sir Eric Phipps that he has made the communication, the British Note may be available in the Vote Office.

Mr. LANSBURY: Obviously, I do not propose to ask any further questions in connection with the Note sent to the German Government to-day, but we may be obliged to ask some questions tomorrow.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is also proposed to discuss the situation with the United States Government and other signatories to the Peace Treaty, and whether it is proposed to ask for a meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations?

Sir J. SIMON: I can answer both those questions, and can assure the right hon. Gentleman that both these matters are under consideration.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Italian and French Governments are sending notes?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot say anything about that at the moment.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether it was the Government's interpretation which we listened to on the wireless on Saturday night?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know what was said on the wireless, but, of course, it was not the Government's interpretation or the Opposition's interpretation.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the announcer was authorised to make the statement he did on Saturday night?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know what the statement was, but whatever it was—I am not criticising it—it was, of course, entirely unofficial.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Edwin Duncan Sandys, esquire, for the Borough of Lambeth (Norwood Division).

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to extend by a further period of two years the period during which the powers of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to prepare and settle schemes under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1930, may be exercised," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Skelton; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go tonight if the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule is carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: The suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is being moved in order to obtain the necessary Army Votes; the Report stage of the Regimental Charitable Funds (Money Resolution),

and the remaining stages of the same Bill, which I understand, is quite non-contentious.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 29.

Division No. 107.]
AYES.
[3.27 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Dickie, John P.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Albery, Irving James
Duckworth, George A. V.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Duggan, Hubert John
Loder, Captain J. de Vera


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Anstruther-Gray. W. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Assheton, Ralph
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Fermoy, Lord
Magnay, Thomas


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Fox, Sir Gilford
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Martin, Thomas B.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Blindell, James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Bossom, A. C
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Meller, Sir Richard James


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Goldie, Noel B.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Greene, William P. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gratton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grigg, Sir Edward
Moreing, Adrian C.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grimston, R. V.
Morgan, Robert H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Brawn, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanbury, Cecil
Munro, Patrick


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Harris, Sir Percy
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Burghley, Lord
Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hartland, George A.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
North, Edward T.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Nunn, William


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Peake, Osbert


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cazalet, Capt, V. A. (Chippenham)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W)
Horobin, Ian M.
Petherick, M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Christie, James Archibald
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jamleson, Douglas
Pybus, Sir John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Janner, Barnett
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colman, N. C. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rankin, Robert


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cooper, A. Duff
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Rea, Walter Russell


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Knight, Holford
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Leckle, J. A.
Remer, John R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cross, R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crossley, A. C.
Levy, Thomas
Ross, Ronald D.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yenvll)
Lewis, Oswald
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Rothschild, James A. de
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Spears, Brigadler-General Edward L.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Salmon, Sir Isldore
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Weymouth, Viscount


Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
White, Henry Graham


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Strauss, Edward A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Sandys, Edwin Duncan
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Selley, Harry R.
Summersby, Charles H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sutclifte, Harold
Womersley, Sir Walter


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sinclair, Mal. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo



Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


Somervell, Sir Donald
Turton, Robert Hugh



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
John, William
Thorne, William James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cleary, J. J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wilmot, John


Dobbie, William
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Parkinson, John Allen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1935.

MR. HACKING'S STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

3.48 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
In presenting the Army Estimates for 1935, I desire at once to make one important overriding observation. The responsibility for their preparation and for their contents, as most hon. Members will be aware, rests with my right hon. and Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, and the other members of the Army Council. If, therefore, during my speech I appear to take an undue credit unto myself, I want the House to realise that it is not intentional and is solely due to the unfortunate phrasing of my sentences. Credit for all that is good should be given where it is due, and may I add that any unlikely blame that might be attached should be attributed likewise?
Hon. Members will observe that the net figures of Army Estimates are higher this year by about £4,000,000. They will naturally ask for, and are entitled to know, the reasons for this increase. I will do my best to give them. In the first place, I would remind the House that the military commitments are not settled by the War Office, but by His Majesty's Government as a whole. We are in many ways a Cinderella Department. We are called upon to implement policies the framing of which obviously depends on many other than military considerations. The House last Monday agreed to the Government's policy. It only remains for me to prove to hon. Members that the cost of carrying out that policy, so far as the War Office is concerned, is no way extravagant. It is that proof which I hope to be able to provide this afternoon.
Hon. Members will see from the Estimates that the War Office is required to provide 66 infantry battalions for service oversea. If we have 66 battalions oversea we ought to have the same number at home in order that, for each battalion oversea, there may be a
battalion at home to train recruits, provide drafts and secure all ranks a fair proportion of service in the United Kingdom. That means that we ought to have a total of 132 battalions of infantry of the line. Actually, we have now only 126 line battalions. Consequently, in order to meet our obligations we have sent one battalion of Foot Guards on oversea service. Further, two line regiments, instead of each having one battalion oversea and one battalion at home, must have both their battalions oversea at the same time—a very undesirable thing. However, the only alternative to the despatch of home units on these tours oversea is raising fresh battalions of infantry of the line, a costly course which it is not proposed to recommend.
I mention this to prove how hard pressed is the War Office at the present time to meet ordinary calls upon infantry for purposes which have been well described as policing the Empire. This means that if any extra permanent commitment is thrown on to the Army, we cannot cut down our existing services to offset its cost. For the next few years at least, and especially in view of yesterday's news, we are faced with at least one serious extra commitment—the provision and organisation of adequate coastal and anti-aircraft defences of the home country. The late Lord Haldane, Mr. Haldane as he then was, in introducing his first Army Estimates in 1906, observed that in the accepted principle that the Navy alone was capable of defending these shores from invasion we had a bedrock fact for the organisation of our defence. He further went on to say, and I quote his exact words—
If we are to attempt to provide against the contingency of that being wrong"—
in other words the contingency of the Navy alone no longer being able to defend these shores against invasion—
we shall have to provide against various other contingencies overwhelming in their multiplicity and uncertainty.
Unfortunately this "blue water principle," as Lord Haldane described it, can no longer be accepted as the basis for our defence—at any rate, not without considerable qualification. Now that mankind has another element in which to move and to fight, namely the air, we can no longer rely entirely upon the Navy to defend this country against hostile invasion or against raids upon
such a scale and against such objectives as might well paralyse our national life. As Lord Haldane foresaw, we are therefore faced with contingencies overwhelming in their multiplicity and uncertainty.
It is true that a third defence service has in the meantime been called into being, but although by the creation of the Royal Air Force the Army is relieved of the responsibility for operations in the air, it remains responsible for the land defences including defences operated from the land against enemy aircraft. It follows then that the same factors which necessitate the expansion of the defence squadrons of the Royal Air Force operate also to demand the expansion of the anti-aircraft units administered by the War Office. This extension is reflected in these Estimates. Not only is it necessary to provide the personnel—and I shall have something to say about that later—but it is also necessary to provide highly technical armaments and apparatus and, in addition, extremely specialised research has to be constantly undertaken. In the coming year we have provided for expenditure amounting to over £450,000 for the purpose of improving the anti-aircraft defences of the country. Almost the whole of this amount is required for material, that is to say for searchlights, anti-aircraft guns, technical instruments for locating aircraft and directing fire and also appropriate ammunition. The whole of this expenditure is required to help to make up deficiences in our defences.
I need not elaborate the point that this expenditure is purely for defensive measures for the protection of our own territory and our own people, civilian as well as military. The Army is called upon to provide defences in connection with naval as well as air operations. Coastal defences both at home and abroad are obsolescent, and require adapting to modem developments. These Estimates provide for expenditure in that direction totalling approximately £1,500,000 for improvements in defended ports. Most of it is required at stations abroad—in the Far East and the Mediterranean. Again, let me emphasise the fact that none of the services provided by this expenditure is capable of use except for defensive purposes in British territory. It cannot possibly be regarded as provocative though
we hope it may be regarded as a deterrent against attack.
I have explained that the fact which has really determined the minimum strength of the Regular Army is the demand for policing the Empire. In this connection, I hope to prove conclusively that our strength is in fact the bare minimum. Let the House consider for example the case of the island of Ceylon, a rich country with an area approximating to that of the Irish Free State, and with very nearly twice the population. What regular troops do we provide there? Two battalions of artillery, and a few ancillary troops—a total of 262 soldiers of all ranks. Would any other country, or even the League of Nations itself, if charged with the responsibility of safeguarding that territory be able to show more pacific figures? If they take in turn the stations abroad where we have troops, examine their geographical position, and consider other relevant factors, hon. Members will realise that there is no prospect in the near future of reducing the number of British troops oversea. Let us realise, then, here at home, aye and let us voice it abroad, that we are bound to maintain the Army oversea at approximately its present strength for purposes which no one by any possible stretch of imagination can describe as provocative or militaristic.
I hope, then, it is agreed that we cannot economise in respect of our oversea troops. In the early part of my speech I showed that to maintain these troops oversea it is necessary to have units at home. Hon. Members will observe that rather more than half of our regular troops are in home establishments. These include recruits, non-commissioned officers at depots, soldiers who have finished the full period of overseas service and are entitled to a period at home, men undergoing courses of training in technical institutions, and men under special training in civil trades preparatory to their discharge. The number of soldiers in the infantry battalions at home who are available for drafting overseas is only just sufficient for the purpose of replacing soldiers who are due to return home because of the expiry of their term of service, or who, because of some other reason, have to be brought back to this country. Units abroad are maintained at their full
strength. Thus, any deficiency of strength in an infantry regiment can only be borne by the infantry battalion at home.
Apart, then, from all other considerations, our overseas commitments require the maintenance of forces in this country, and in the infantry, at all events, home establishments would have to be maintained approximately at their present strength on account of their oversea commitments alone. Being compelled to have these troops at home gives us, however, an opportunity of organising the various units into brigades and divisions. There are at present five regular divisions in this country. Those, in turn, enable the Army to receive collective training, which, though essential to the Army, is impossible in mose of the stations oversea. It also enables us to try out and to make use of modern technical developments, and by means of the system of drafting personnel overseas from units at home, to keep the latter in touch with these developments. Any army to be effective must be up-to-date. It is no use having an army which would be hopelessly outclassed in weapons and other materials, or in mobility if it were ever called upon to fight.
Those divisions of regular troops at home serve two purposes, not only providing drafts for oversea garrisons, but also having to be prepared to furnish any force which might be required in an emergency. No one can tell when an emergency may arise, or where and to what extent it may develop, but it is our obvious duty to be prepared for it. If I might give one recent example of an emergency, it was in connection with the Saar plebiscite. We could not have played the honourable part we did had it not been for our forces at home. I hope to make further reference to that later in my speech. Whether our force at home, which is now called a field force, is to be used in operations such as the Saar, or to repel enemy attacks within the confines of the Empire, or even to conduct operations outside, it is necessary that it should be adequately supported by material—guns, ammunition, tanks, transport, technical apparatus and so on.
How do we stand in this connection? Just as we have allowed our anti-aircraft defence and our coastal defence to remain
at a level which has long since ceased to be adequate, so, and to an even greater extent, we have allowed our preparations for the equipment of our very modest field force to become less and less efficient. It is not possible to go on for ever in this state of comparative inefficiency. We must, therefore, commence to put our own house in order. These Estimates provide an instalment towards the provision of essential equipment for a field force. It is not a case of expanding our Army, but of doing something towards reaching our own very modest standard, which has been in abeyance ruring the disarmament negotiations, leaving us in a precarious position in a world which has not seen fit to follow our example. The answer, then, to the question as to what are the reasons for this year's increase of £4,000,000 over last year's Estimates, is in order that we may improve our existing anti-aircraft and coastal defences, and in order that we may make good our present deficiency in our field force equipment.
I will now turn to points of detail. It is always difficult to find a logical order for expounding any complex organisation. The Army, undoubtedly, is highly complex. It covers, in some form or other, the whole of human activities. The War Office purview extends from the midwife to the undertaker, and it ranges over all stages in between. We provide nurses, doctors, teachers, and chaplains. We feed, clothe and house many thousands in all kinds of climates. We have our own factories, our own workshops, and our own playing-fields. Our educational interests range from infant schools to post-graduate colleges. Few will dispute the complexity of the interests for which provision is made in these Estimates, or will complain if, without regard to their logical sequence, I deal with subjects in the order in which they appear in the Estimates which are published and circulated to this House.
In Vote A the House is asked to authorise the maintenance of regular troops in British establishments, that is to say, for services at all stations except India. They total 152,200, an increase of 2,700 on the figures for 1934. The increases are almost entirely in the following corps: Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Royal Army Service Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps and Royal
Ordnance Corps. The principal factors which have made the increase necessary are, first, essential improvements in the coast defence at home and overseas, and, secondly, the requirements of our field force. I have already referred to these factors in my general remarks explaining the total increase in the Estimates, but I would say that whenever it has been possible to effect reductions, the establishments have in fact been reduced. There are no increases in the cavalry or infantry, and there are no possibilities of reductions in these branches of the Army to off-set the necessary expansion in the technical arm.
Perhaps it will help hon. Members if here I explain that the total of 152,200 constitutes the maximum establishment, the money provision in other Votes—pay, food, clothing, etc.—is not assessed upon the Vote A numbers, but is estimated on the strength during the year. Vote 1 for pay shows a gross increase of £426,000. This increase is due, in the main, to the restoration of the emergency cut, to the extra day which falls in 1936 and to the probable increase in numbers. It will be observed that the pay of soldiers on regimental establishments accounts for nearly £8,000,000. This is a large sum, but I do not think any hon. Members will consider that the pay of a soldier is extravagantly high, nor would they press for any economies upon this Vote.
Consideration of the pay of the Regular Army naturally leads to consideration of its functions. These I have already described in a general way with reference to the needs of this country and its colonies, dependencies and mandated territories. The activities of the League of Nations have, however, added to its responsibilities. This has been illustrated in the last few months by the presence in the Saar Territory of an international force under the aegis of the League, the largest contingent of which was provided by our Army. I promised earlier in my speech to say a few more words in connection with this force. Although it included a high proportion of young troops, as is inevitable in any force on the home establishment, their conduct was quite up to the best traditions of the British Army. They have returned with no battle honours. They inflicted and sustained no casualties, but I am quite
sure I am speaking for every hon. Member in this House when I say that they have returned with the greater honour on that account.
Although public attention has been drawn to the work of the Saar force, and it has even earned the approbation of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as also that of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who, I think, wishes to have a medal presented to each member of the Saar force—although it has received that approbation, let us appreciate the fact that this force was only performing in the Saar essentially the same function as is continually performed by our overseas garrisons in almost every part of the world. I think, indeed, there could not be a better illustration of the ordinary day-to-day work of our overseas troops than the example of the work of the Saar force. During seven or eight months of the year units and drafts are leaving Southampton in troopships for service abroad. Other units are returning, some of them after 18 to 21 years' service overseas. They, too, are, and have been, maintaining peace, often under trying conditions, and generally with no actual fighting. I think it would be well if the people of this country could be persuaded to think of our Army in terms of its almost constant peace time and peace preserving activities, humdrum though they be, rather than in terms of its occasional war service, however glorious that may be.
I sometimes believe that the Army is in need of a propaganda department to give the people of this country, who maintain it, a full opportunity of realising what it does and how it lives. Ignorance leads to misunderstanding, misunderstanding to opposition, and I know from what I have read and heard how much opposition there is at times to young men when they contemplate joining the Army. In general, this opposition, I am sure, is not so much against the real functions of our Army, which are for the maintenance of peace, as against the imagined or feared functions. At all events, I am sure that the more the public knows the truth about army life, the less discouragement there will be to recruiting for it. Before passing from Vote 1, I feel that I ought to add one sentence about the present high standard of good conduct within the Regular Army.
I believe it is true to say that patriotism, discipline, and devotion to duty have never been more pronounced than they are to-day.
Under Vote 2, provision is made for the Reserve and the Territorial Army. The strength of the Army Reserve for 1935 is estimated at 113,000, as against 119,500 last year. This figure is largely dependent, on the one hand, upon the number of men who are transferred to the Reserve on the termination of the period of service of their first engagement and, on the other hand, upon the number of reservists whose period of reserve service is due to expire during the year. The figure, therefore, varies from year to year, and we need not be unduly alarmed because there happens to be a decrease this year. In addition to the Army Reserve, it is necessary to have certain technical personnel who are found from the Supplementary Reserve—motor drivers, mechanics, and the hundred and one trades that are essential in a military force. The present numbers of such technical reservists are not adequate, and it will be necessary to increase them. Provision is made in these Estimates for an increase of 1,054, all ranks, over the figures of last year.
I now come to the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army has nowadays two separate roles. The first function is to defend this country. Consistent with this, the manning of coast defences and anti-aircraft units has been entrusted to it. Its second function is to provide, if and when an Act is passed through both Houses of Parliament, reinforcements—not, let it be said, drafts—of the field force should it be necessary to increase it. It is not to be expected that the soldiers of the Territorial Army would be ready to take the field immediately upon mobilisation, but after a period of intensive training they would be, and thereafter they would be fed by their own training battalions and offshoots. The Territorial Army, therefore, has an essential role in the organisation of the country's defence. The Territorial Army is, unfortunately, under strength. I think it is most probable that one of the root causes of this is the failure to appreciate the extreme, in fact the vital, importance of the functions of this citizen force. Let us not forget that it is upon this force that the safety of this
realm finally rests, and that our necessarily small, though far from contemptible, Army of Regulars must rely upon the Territorials for support upon active service.
With a view to encouraging men to join the Territorial Army, we have recently been considering the representations of territorial associations and of commanding officers, some of whom are Members of this House, for the removal of certain grievances. The first is with regard to marriage allowance. This allowance, on grounds of policy as well as of finance, is restricted in the Regular Army to those who have reached the age of 26 years. Hitherto, we have had this same restriction on the Territorials. It is clear, however, on reflection that the attitude of Territorial soldiers to marriage can be governed by civilian considerations only. They live under full military conditions for but two weeks in the year. The grant or withholding of marriage allowance for married men under the age of 26 for so short a period may well make a very big difference to them and a still greater difference to their families. The men themselves may not suffer. They get fed, they are housed, they are paid at regular rates, but the pay may not suffice for the family maintenance. Hon. Members have not been slow to make me aware of this state of affairs, and, moreover, to deprecate it.
I am glad to be able to announce that the Army Council have decided that in future the conditions will be modified for the Territorial Army. We propose that in future any non-commissioned officer of the Territorial Army, including a lance-corporal, who is married and who reengages, shall be entitled to marriage allowance when he enters upon a second period of four years. Further, any man who is married and has entered upon his second engagement will be eligible for marriage allowance when he receives his first promotion. This concession will, I hope, meet the serious complaint of commanding officers who have found a disinclination to re-engage among some of their most promising men because of this refusal of marriage allowance in the past. The change, I repeat, is a recognition of the essential difference in the circumstances of the Territorial as compared with the Regular soldier, and is intended to help in retaining in the Territorial
Army those who are vital, key men for the training of others to become efficient in their turn.
We propose also to increase the grant made to territorial associations to enable them to reimburse Territorial Army soldiers the cost of their fares when attending drill. This will be up to a limit of 1s. per attendance for a specified number of drills. These two concessions will also apply to members of the Supplementary Reserve. We have also recently been giving attention to the position of territorial instructors, who again are essential to the efficiency of the force. Attendance at a very large number of drills is necessary for a noncommissioned officer to become efficient as an instructor, and the existing reward is small. Some further inducement is considered necessary to obtain an adequate supply. We accordingly propose that in future a non-commissioned officer who has become qualified shall, subject to certain conditions, be paid for his work as an instructor beyond his obligatory drill at the rate of 1s. an hour, but not exceeding £l in a year. It has also been decided to increase the inducement to territorial soldiers to qualify as specialists of certain subjects, for example, range takers and the like. In future the proficiency grant to certain specialists will be £2 a year, in lieu of 30s. as in the past. I hope that these concessions will give satisfaction to many of my hon. Friends who have been pressing me in respect of these matters during the last few months.
I have already referred to the need for making better provision for the anti-aircraft defence of this country and to the fact that the Territorial Army is responsible for manning these defences. The existing defences were organised at a time when the radius of action of bombing aeroplanes virtually limited the vulnerable area to London and the counties in the South and East. This radius, however, has been so extended that it has been necessary to provide defences not only for the whole of the London area, but also for the industrial areas of the North and the Midlands. Consequently the number of existing units is not adequate, and it will be necessary to raise fresh anti-aircraft artillery brigades and searchlight companies
of the Royal Engineers. As I have already said, at the present time the strength of the Territorial Army is sadly below establishment. Therefore, it is far from easy to raise fresh units. When the Territorial Army was first formed, it was organised in 14 divisions. This number was probably based more on the number of units and personnel which it was estimated would be obtainable than on any military necessity. As far as military requirements are concerned, it is considered that 14 divisions are really more than sufficient.
We have, therefore, felt bound to ask certain field units of the Territorial Army to consent to be transformed into air defence units, that is to say, either anti-aircraft brigades of artillery or searchlight battalions of engineers. The Territorial divisions have acquired traditions and associations which they naturally and rightly treasure. Though these traditions and associations may be difficult, as they are, to define, they exist and are of the greatest importance. Only the vital need for transforming the character of home defence to the changing conditions of attack have led us to make this change. It is impossible to provide for the whole of this great change in one year. Some of the units required for the defence of London already exist. During the latter part of this year it is proposed to put into operation plans which will ultimately provide the additional units necessary to complete the London defences. This provisional plan has already been drawn up, and it will be in the hands of the Territorial associations and the commanders concerned very shortly. I think, as a matter of fact, it will be in their hands to-morrow morning. We intend to invite their co-operation and comment regarding the selection of the individual units before any final decision is taken.
So far as the defence of the north and the midlands is concerned, no provision is being taken in these Estimates for any change. It will be some considerable time before any decision can be reached and still longer before any plans can become operative. There need, then, be no immediate anxiety among any Territorial field forces outside the London defence area that they will shortly be asked to consent to any transformation into air defence units. I make that statement because many hon. Members have been uncertain in their minds as to when
they would be called upon for any change to be made. It is of little use to have the units and the men for the units in the London defence area if they have not the guns, searchlights and other instruments and equipment. I am afraid that financial stringency has led to the starvation of some units in the past. More than one hon. Member has represented to me the extreme difficulty of arousing and keeping up enthusiasm in a technical unit such as an anti-aircraft brigade of artillery if there is not sufficient equipment, not only for fighting, but even for training. We are doing what we can, and in the next few years we hope, as funds permit, to provide equipment sufficient at least to train all the anti-aircraft defence units.
The Officers Training Corps is another essential feature of our defence arrangements which calls for our gratitude. It involves very little expense from public funds; it provides an extremely valuable service; and, moreover, it gives preliminary military training to a very large percentage of those who later serve as commissioned officers in the Supplementary Reserve and the Territorial Army. The training of both divisions is making satisfactory progress, and there is a welcome increase in the number of cadets qualifying in the proficiency examinations. The Army Council is very grateful to the authorities of the various schools and universities which are rendering such splendid assistance by giving early and valuable training to those who in later years may be called upon to occupy important positions in the military forces of the Crown.
Under Vote 3 hon. Members are asked to provide £950,000 net for the cost of the medical services. No one will dispute the necessity for the provision of medical attention to the troops. Few realise that the Royal Army Medical Corps has its special problems in peace, no less than in war. The distribution of troops in oversea garrisons under widely varying geographic and climatic conditions must call for specialised medical knowledge which may not ordinarily be attainable in the United Kingdom. Behind the ordinary day-to-day medical attention proceeds careful research into medical problems peculiar to the Army. Often this research is of immense value to the civil population, as, for example, in the case of Malta fever, which for centuries was an endemic disease in Malta. The
discovery of the cause of this disease and the means of preventing its occurrence, which has been completely successful in the Army, was entirely due to the work of the Army Medical Corps. Important research is proceeding now into anti-typhoid inoculation.
When the work of the Royal Army Medical Service comes to be more fully investigated by the public, a different idea will be formed of its value, not only to the Army, but to medical science and humanity at large. For some years there has been a disconcerting lack of candidates for commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps. This, no doubt, is partly due to financial considerations, and these have been receiving attention. Conditions of service have already been materially improved; promotion has been hastened; and the period of service necessary to qualify for a gratuity on retirement has been reduced. It is now possible for an officer to take a short service commission for five years and be awarded £1,000 gratuity at the end of that period if he is not then appointed to a permanent commission. The service should be attractive to young men who have qualified. The life is interesting, and there is plenty of opportunity for specialisation for those who are keen and desirous of pursuing their medical studies and research. I am confident that if the work of this corps were better known, we should have a much wider field of selection.
Under Vote 4 the House is asked to authorise £908,000 for the educational activities of the Army. This includes the technical instruction given at schools for the fighting arms. The Army, in common with industrial and other organisations, must incorporate current scientific and technical developments which will aid it in its functions. Unlike industrial organisations, we cannot get the necessary specialists by putting an advertisement in a technical journal or even by going to an employment exchange. We have to train the officers and soldiers in order to have personnel who are both military and technical at one and the same time. Moreover, much of the knowledge is peculiar to the Army itself. We cannot, therefore, hope to secure any economies in the sphere of military technical education without the sacrifice of efficiency.
This Vote also includes the cost of the general education of soldiers. The fact that all recruits have been through at least primary civil schools before enlisting, does not dispense with the need of non-technical, cultural education while serving in the Army. We believe that provision for continued education is essential to the well-being of the soldiers themselves, in addition to being of military value. The Vote covers also the cost of schools for children of soldiers who are stationed where no suitable civilian school is available. I should like to draw special attention to the particulars which are furnished in the Estimates and in my Noble Friend's memorandum which accompanies the Estimates of the work of the vocational training centres at Chisledon, Hounslow and Aldershot. In addition to training men for military life and duties, the Army does what it can within the means available to fit them during the last few months of their colour service into civil life when they have left the Army. This is an interesting, useful and highly successful enterprise. The Army cannot any longer be described as a dead end. We know definitely that at least 86.6 per cent. of these trainees obtain civil employment on discharge from the Army.
Vote 6 covers supplies and road transport. We do our best to feed the troops well and economically. Great advances are constantly being made in respect of cold storage and ice manufacture in hot climates in which our troops are called upon to serve. This conduces to greater comfort and better health. Mechanical road transport suitable for military needs is also provided in this Vote. That provision is not quite so simple as one might assume. In a mechanical age armies must adapt themselves to mechanical transport under all sorts of conditions, but in commercial life transport is designed for properly constructed roads. We have no assurance that if ever we have to fight we shall be provided with good surface roads, or, even if we are, that those roads will long remain in good condition.
For some years we have been designing types of vehicles which can function over rough country. Unfortunately, these vehicles are expensive, and, although a type of suitable six-wheeled vehicle has
been produced, it has not proved generally acceptable to commercial users. If we must have this type of six-wheeled vehicle, clearly we must either know that a sufficient supply is readily available from industrial sources, or else we must carry large reserves of our own. We have always sought to avoid the latter alternative, and for some years we have offered subsidies to private owners for suitable six-wheeled vehicles. This, however, I regret to say, has not been successful, and the subsidies are therefore being abolished. Fortunately, four-wheeled vehicles have made really remarkable progress in recent years. We are still hoping that a large portion of our requirements in emergency will be found from industry by impressments off the road. I will make no special reference to Vote 7 or 8 which deal with clothing and general stores.
Vote 9 provides for warlike stores, establishment for research and design in connection with those stores, and for their inspection. Mention has been made in the House and outside of a fresh committee having been set up to conduct an investigation into the new methods of anti-aircraft defence. So far as the War Office is concerned, hon. Members may be surprised, and I know they will be interested, to learn that we have already for some time past maintained a research organisation in which distinguished civil scientists are associated. As a result of this, there have been various remarkable developments, some of which have already been adopted by one or other of the services, and others of which are still in their experimental stage. Proposals have been made for an extension of these inquiries so as to ensure that possible new developments are not overlooked and also to ensure better coordination with the work of other service departments.
The details of expenditure under Vote 9 are set out fully in the Estimates. Approximately £1,000,000 is to be spent upon our ammunition reserve, which is much too low for safety. I would remind the House that there are fewer commercial firms now engaged in the armament industry in this country than before the War, and that there is a direct connection between the capacity of industry for manufacturing armaments and the extent of reserves which we would need. The
lower the industrial capacity the higher must be our reserves. If, as has been urged in some quarters of this House, it were decided to prohibit the manufacture of armaments by private industry I am afraid that the reserves would have to be vastly increased. Whether those high reserves would be less dangerous to peace than the existence of private firms which carry out industrial manufacture as well as work on armaments may be problematical, but I am certain that the cost to the country would be more. At present the industrial capacity is relatively low and the reserves, too, are low, far too low. There is included in this Vote provision for the supply of respirators for anti-gas training for the Territorial Army.
Several hon. Members are quite properly perturbed at the backwardness of our housing arrangements for the soldiers at home. I have carried out recently a personal investigation into this problem. Many of our permanent barracks are very old and admittedly unsatisfactory. At some stations we still have temporary structures some of which are very many years old. From a personal inspection, I should imagine that we still have some relics of the Crimean War. Many married families are living under very bad conditions. Some are quartered in houses and some in huts such as would not be tolerated in civil life. The War Office have never denied the justice of the complaint. They do their best with the funds available, and we are advancing more rapidly in these Estimates than for some years past; but even at the present rate of progress it will take 15 years or so to catch up to the ideas of to-day as regards married quarters and huts. By then ideas will have progressed still further, and we shall still be backward. It may be that some other method may have to be adopted if we are to succeed more effectively in our determination to house all our troops and their families under really satisfactory conditions.
That is all I have to say at the moment on the several Votes. There is, however, one general aspect of these Estimates to which I would like to call very special attention. More than half the money which we are asking for is to be spent directly in pay, pensions or civil wages, and in addition the purchases and services are in themselves responsible for the employment of many thousands of
our own workpeople at home. I have often been asked by hon. Friends of mine in the House why it is that the Contracts Department of the War Office, for which the Secretary of State makes me personally responsible, makes purchases from foreign countries. I can assure my hon. Friends that very sound reasons have to be forthcoming before any orders, large or small, are placed in foreign countries. I cannot now go into details, but when I give the House certain figures I believe they will be satisfied that we never fail, wherever reasonably possible, to place our contracts for British and, failing that, for Empire goods. During the 12 months ended 30th September, 1934, the last complete period for which figures are readily available, the value of purchases made by the Contracts Department at headquarters was £7,966,000. Of this amount £221,000, or only 2.8 per cent., was spent on foreign goods, £647,000, or 8.1 per cent., was spent on Empire goods, while the whole of the rest, namely, £7,098,000, or 89.1 per cent., was spent with British industries. So much for contracts.
From what I said in the earlier part of my speech, it must be abundantly obvious that my great desire in presenting these Estimates to the House has been to prove that they contain nothing which could properly be described as provocative. To my right hon. Friends and other Members of the Opposition may I add this brief appeal. At this moment of uncertainty, when, who knows, we may even be approaching another crisis in the history of this Empire, surely it is desirable, surely it is wise, surely it is statesmanlike, for all parties to show a united front in the simple, straightforward determination that the personnel of our Army shall be more adequately equipped and shall become more efficient and consequently better able to defend themselves and the country against any possible aggression. That is the sole object of these Estimates—to put us in a better position for defending ourselves. In peace the tasks of the British Army are more varied than those performed by any other army in the world. The territories which it guards are greater in extent than those of any other foreign State. Yet our Army is smaller than the army of any other great colonial Power. In these circumstances I certainly do not intend to apologise for this year's increase.
It is inevitable if the policy of the Government is to be carried out, a policy which, as I say, has already been accepted by this House. I feel sure, then, that if these facts are borne in mind we shall have very little to complain about in the discussion which will now follow. It is with full confidence that I submit these Estimates to the House.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: It is no light thing at any time to be called upon to move the Army Estimates for the year, it is no light thing to be called upon to deputise for the Secretary of State, and when that has to be done in what is practically the first speech that a Minister makes to the House the position is one which I am sure calls for sympathy. While the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to respond to the plea he made to us, or expect us to agree with a good deal of his matter, yet the least we can do is to say that the form of the speech and the explanation of the Estimates to-day has been admirable. I was very much struck by the first item with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt, the conduct of the troops. No words could be used which would do more than justice to the men of the British Army from the point of view of conduct, and, indeed, when reading the annual report of the British Army, I have sometimes wondered why the War Office did not make rather more of it than they do, instead of giving us a whole list of figures.
Those who know something of the general conduct as well as the standard of education of the troops, and know the work they perform, were not at all surprised at the splendid eulogies won by the troops who went to the Saar. The right hon. Gentleman was well entitled to make the claim that he did concerning their conduct. I talked to some of the troops when they returned, and I was impressed by the warmth of feeling they expressed for the people of the Saar. The impression I got was that we had sent to the Saar soldiers, but that they had turned out to be merely good neighbours and had earned the esteem of the people living there. If the statesmen of this country and the statesmen of Europe generally could aproach the problems that are upon them to-day, and that have been multiplied during the week-end, in the spirit and with the tact, good sense
and feeling of neighbourliness shown by the ordinary "Tommy" in the Saar, there would be hope for a successful issue to our difficulties.
Every year we get a report dealing with recruiting, and I had expected the right hon. Gentleman would say something about that. We are told that out of 80,203 applicants to join the Army only 25,564 were finally approved. Approximately 68 per cent. were rejected on account of physical, educational or other defects. The report says:
It must, however, be remembered that the medical standard required of the soldier is equivalent to, if not higher than, that for a first-class insurance policy. It must be remembered also that many men are rejected for the Army on account of disabilities, which incapacitate them from the military point of view only, and which do not reflect on their general health. For this reason, the figures cannot be taken as an indication of the health and physique of the nation as a whole. Of the number of applicants to join, 45.5 per cent. were either in employment or had been so during the preceding three months.
I want to challenge that conclusion. The great mass of the men who have been rejected are aged between 18 and 20 years, and two out of every three have been rejected. One naturally expects that between 18 and 20 years the average person is what one might term Al for purposes of insurance. It must be borne in mind also that the great bulk of the men who go into the Army are of the more adventurous type, and usually consider themselves as physically fit for the job and of quite good appearance for the purposes for which they enlist. What is more significant still is that every year this goes on: 80,000 offer themselces to enlist and roughly 25,000 are accepted. Any hon. Member can take this report and look at the figures for the past 10 years, and he will find that this year's figures are pretty much what they have been for some years past, except that they are actually getting worse.
It is significant that the War Office find it necessary to state that something like 45 per cent. were either working when they enlisted or had been within the last three months. That means that 65 per cent. were unemployed, and, if the Government are so very serious about being efficient, about having the Army's stores made up, surely it is more import-ant that the Army's human equipment should be physically fit for the tasks that
they are called on to perform. It is a trite statement, but there is abundant fact in human history to prove it: that it is possible to keep external enemies out, and yet for a nation or an Empire to be ruined by being blind to the obvious facts affecting the physical, mental and moral life of the nation. I therefore hope that if the Government are in the mood to spend extra money on the Army, when it comes to the question of considering spending money to keep men employed and well fed they will show the same enthusiasm.
These Estimates amount to £43,600,000, with an increase of something like £4,000,000 on last year. When the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was making his speech on defence, I was very much struck by the fact that he seemed so hard put to it that he gave a good deal of attention to the items which come-under Vote 10 dealing with works and buildings. He seemed anxious to give the impression to the House that one of the great items was that which dealt with the housing of the soldiers, both single and married. But out of the £4,000,000 there is only just over £400,000 for works and buildings. It is about 11 per cent. of the whole. Indeed, I thought that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs found himself in great difficulties when he had to depend on that argument. But that £400,000 increase is not just for the purpose of housing soldiers, barracks, married quarters and the rest of it; a great deal of it is for the purpose of housing new tanks, and various mechanical units. No one on this side would make the slightest complaint if the increase were for the purpose of housing soldiers. We certainly would not be a party to conditions which hardly reach the ordinary standards of the Ministry of Health. But that does not cover this Vote by any means.
If hon. Members will look at this particular Vote, they will see some very striking things in it. One of them, for instance, is a token Vote on page 203. It is a Vote of about £2,250,000 for Hong Kong, but we only get a token Vote of £100. I did think that the right hon. Gentleman would have given some attention to that item. I want to measure my words about this, but I do not think it is fair to the House and I do not think it is fair to the country that the War Office should try and push through a
huge vote of that description on a mere token Vote, and I think we were entitled to some more explanation. It is said that it is for the purpose of providing accommodation for three battalions. What sort of accommodation is that which is going to cost about £700,000 for each battalion? I see that there is a new depot costing £132,000. It is really extraordinary that we should have an item of this description pushed away in a corner without any attempt to explain it. I should like to ask: Is this in pursuance of further defences of a more militaristic character than appears on the surface? Then there is three quarters of a million pounds for Singapore this year. Those are some of the items that come into this Vote for works and buildings. So that when the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tried to get away with this as an item for housing soldiers, doing the decent thing, keeping them up to healthy standards, he was not giving proper attention to it or else he had not been properly briefed.
I wonder why it is we get this expenditure on housing every year. We have now been spending money on this purpose for nearly 20 years. For the last 10 years there has been an average of over £3,000,000 spent on works and buildings, and many millions have been spent on new conditions. The right hon. Gentleman may not know it, but for some years now I have drawn attention to this fact. I have always been led to ask myself the question: Are we really getting value for our money? Is it not time that, with the amount of money that has been spent, the soldier was guaranteed proper housing conditions, both married and single? A great part of that £30,000,000 has gone for that purpose, and we ought not to be in the position at this time of day of saying that the Ministry of Health would condemn the great mass of the barracks and the housing standards generally of the troops. In fact, I am so concerned about this that I am wondering if the House would not think it worth while doing something about it. I think that we have spent over £1,000,000 at Catterick, and yet there are old huts and all the rest of it in that part of the world still. It is high time that the War Office took steps to survey this business in order that the House may have a guarantee that its money is properly
spent, and that there is to be an end to these insanitary conditions for soldiers.
But that is only one small item of the whole amount of the increase that we are asked to pass to-day. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs argued in the defence Debate that we have only so many soldiers now and that we had so many in 1914; that we have not as big an Army now as we had in 1914. The right hon. Gentleman has followed not exactly the same lines, but he has said that we need this £4,000,000 in order that we shall have an efficient Army. I am astonished to hear that kind of statement from that Box. I have been listening here now for many years to speeches from the War Office representatives, and all along the line we have been told that we have not got a big Army but we have got an efficient Army. He is only a little fellow, but he is trained to the last ounce. That is the story we have heard continually. It is not worth while reading quotations from previous speeches, but that is the line that has been taken. If we take even the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, there is really not a word in his speech last year to demonstrate that the Army was not properly equipped. We were never given the slightest hint about that, and I can explain why. Comparison of the numbers, if nothing else, in 1914, with those of to-day, is simply ridiculous. In 1914 there were two machine guns to a battalion. Two was a magic word for the War Office at that time. I understand that we had 148 infantry battalions in 1914, with 296 machine guns altogether; in 1935 we have 136 infantry battalions with 5,712 machine guns, Lewis and other guns. That is a tremendous difference. There has also been enormous development of power. We have nearly 300 tanks. Comparisons with pre-war times, or even with last year or the year before, are ridiculous. Every year there is an increase of the fire power for the money spent, which is altogether out of proportion to anything that can be measured in money or men.
I remember when we got the new word "mechanisation," I should not be surprised if it were not this country which coined the phrase "mechanised army." We were told at that time that for the amount of money we had to spend we
should never have large numbers of men, and that as we had to have a small Army it was necessary to make it as powerful as possible. It appears to be assumed that Members of the House have not been following this matter very closely and that the modern man does not know anything, even in a general way, about the terrifically increased power for destruction of modern arms, as compared with only a few years ago. I have been very much surprised to find so much talk about lack of equipment, need for renovation, stores being under-manned, and that kind of thing. It is quite new, but it tallies with the story that is being told in other parts of the world to other nations. I noticed in the French debates on Saturday that the same terms were being used, and I suppose the Germans will be using them. There is the same round of terms and phrases that mean nothing in particular. The whole story in this Estimate is of armoured cars, tanks, tractors, artillery wagons, infantry transport, and such items. No one who has seen a modern mechanised army operating, with its series of terrifying steel towers ranging from a vast building of steel to the whippets around, will be in any way beguiled by the idea that we have only a small, inefficient, ill-equipped Army. That is not a good enough story for the Government to try to put across, when they want this increase of £4,000,000, £2,000,000 of which is going in this direction.
We ought to have a more explicit explanation as to the lack of stores. That is altogether new. The statement of the Secretary of State for War in his memorandum is that there is a new means of preserving stores. The Department have a means of examining stores in order to stop disease by means of radiology. I should think that we have led the van in the industrial life of this country in testing and experimenting in that direction. Not very much is said about it, and I shall not go into details, although there is no reason why I should not do so. In Woolwich a special department can test the condition of stores of almost any kind and radiate light through very strong solids. I want the case made out for the destruction of stores. It is said that there is a lack of stores. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we have not the same number
of factories producing munitions as in the normal days before the War, but I do not think that there is anything in that. The potential productive power applies in that direction as it applies to anything else in the whole range of production. It applies also to Woolwich.
I do not know whether there is anything in the statement that Woolwich Arsenal is to be moved; I hope there is not. I do not know whether the Government have arrived at a decision in the matter, but, if the arsenal is unfortunately to be moved, I wish to make it clear to the Government that they must not do the same in respect to Woolwich as they did with regard to the Pimlico army clothing factory not very far from this House. In that case, the lease was up, and the Government simply scrapped the whole business. They simply abandoned the whole of the War Office experience in that direction and put themselves into the hands of private producers. It is not easy to obtain a comparison of what is happening under private production, but the War Office are certainly losing experience by which to test the private producers of army uniforms and safeguard themselves against those who would exploit the Department. If there is to be experiment and research for the production of stores and munitions and guns, it is to be hoped that the Government will do it themselves instead of letting the work go to private firms. I do not believe there is anything in the statement that power for the production of munitions is not as great as it was before the War. Factories and units are bigger and the productive capacity is infinitely—many times—ahead of what it was in years gone by.
There has not been by any means a satisfactory explanation of the increase which we are called upon to vote. We have not been told in what we are deficient. The right hon. Gentleman used that word continually. He said there was a deficiency in equipment. The Army was deficient in this, that, and the other, and he is asking the House to vote an increase of £4,000,000 despite the continued statements that the Army, even if small, was very efficient. The fact is that the £4,000,000 is part of a general increased expenditure on defence, and is of one piece with the increases in regard
to the Navy and the Air Force. When we speak about the small unit of defence, such as our Army, we cannot dissociate it from the fact that we have to vote vast Estimates for the Navy and considerable Estimates for the Royal Air Force. The Government must face the fact that in asking us to increase this Estimate they have departed from the routine which has been followed by Governments for a number of years of doing their business along pacific lines and relying to some extent upon collective action through the League of Nations. It is significant that we are asked not merely for an increase of £4,000,000, but that for the first time since the War there is a complete departure from reliance upon collective action and upon the collective wisdom of that organisation which was set up for the purpose of giving a sense of security to the peoples of the world.
The Government cannot be very satisfied of the effect of this increase upon the world at large. On this side of the House we are no more in love with the present creed of the Germans than is anyone else, but Governments in the past have withstood it to some extent, and have relied upon collective action to give hope of security to the world. If ever there was a time when the statesmen of this country and of the world should take note of the ordinary man in the street, it is the present time. Rather than trust the present Government or its policy, I should be prepared to trust a delegation from, say, the British Legion to meet the ex-combatants of other countries. I would rather accept the contribution that they would make than that of the statesmen who have been manipulating and manoeuvring things during the past few years. I remember, as a lad in the pit, thinking of the Foreign Secretary as a man very able in international law, as one of very great experience and status in both legal and social matters, and generally as a statesman to be looked up to; but, taking into account the experience of the British troops in the Saar, the experience of the various peoples of the world and the agony they have gone through in our lifetime, the gloom which now rests upon this and other lands, the almost despair that has settled upon the people of this and other countries, I should say it would be a good thing if statesmen generally would stand aside
and let people meet each other. We shall vote against these Estimates; we shall take the consequences of that vote; but we would say to His Majesty's Government and to the statesmen of other countries: "For God's sake get out of the light, and let the people see each other."

5.33 p.m.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: The Estimates that we have to consider this afternoon are remarkable in that they follow on the White Paper which we discussed on Monday, and, therefore, have a very peculiar relationship, not only to the armed forces of the country, but to the foreign policy pursued by the Government. I do not propose to enter into that at this moment, though I may have something to say about it later; but I propose to consider the Estimates themselves in one or two respects. I think every Member in the House must have been struck by the fact that the increases in the Estimates do not concern only one Vote, but cover every Vote. It is true that the principal increases are in one or two Votes, but nevertheless it is remarkable that, in the whole of the long list of Votes of which we shall be asked to approve as time goes on, there is a substantial increase, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the figures he gave. Speaking of Vote 9 (Warlike Stores), he indicated that £1,500,000 was going to be spent on coast defences here and abroad, and £450,000 upon new anti-aircraft defences. Later in his speech he indicated that an additional £1,000,000 was going to be spent upon reserve ammunition. These sums amount to nearly £3,000,000, instead of an increase of £2,000,000. I may have misunderstood what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I put the figures down at the time. Perhaps he will be kind enough if he does not wish to intervene now, to tell the House, when he replies, what exactly the figures are, and what the increase in Vote 9 really does represent, because, of course, it is half the total increase for the year.
There is one very important point on the Estimates about which I should like some information. The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, and it is of course known to the whole House, that the home forces are divided into five divisions. It will be within the recollection
of the Committee that on Monday last the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who was a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1931, when he was first Lord of the Admiralty, said that he did not believe that at the present moment we could send abroad an expeditionary force of even as much as three divisions without an immense delay. The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority. As an ex-Foreign Secretary, his words are very closely followed by foreign Governments and in the foreign Press, and I think that what he said ought either to be confirmed or denied this evening by the right hon. Gentleman who answers for the War Office. I have the right hon. Gentleman's words here, and perhaps I had better quote them:
What is the position to-day? We could not send a similar force abroad"—
he had been speaking of the expeditionary force of August, 1914.
We could not send, I venture to say, six divisions, we could not send five, we could not send four, we could not send three without prolonged delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1935; col. 77, Vol. 299.]
If that be the case, we are spending £43,000,000 this year without getting anything comparable with the result that we got for very much less money before the War. Those are the particular points about which I wanted to inform myself on these Estimates.
I must take note of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his speech that these increased Estimates represented an instalment towards the equipment of the field force. What proportion does that instalment bear to the eventual expenditure? I assume from the White Paper that the Government propose a gradually increasing expenditure upon what they call reconditioning the armed forces of the Crown, and I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that the increase which we see this year is an instalment. What is the policy which involves the total fresh expenditure? I imagine that this instalment has not been taken in hand without the whole eventual expenditure being planned out, and that the Government have a pretty accurate idea of their intentions. I should very much like to know what percentage of the total
planned additional expenditure is represented by the increase of £4,000,000 this year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) quoted last Monday the statement issued with the 1933 Estimates by Lord Hailsham, and that quotation, upon which he founded an argument, was not answered in the Debate. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply this evening, will be so good as to explain it, because in 1933 Lord Hailsham wrote, referring to the previous seven years:
They have been years of extreme financial stringency, but although the Army Estimates are some £4,500,000 less than when he (Lord Milne) came to the War Office, the efficiency of the Army is higher"—
not equal, but higher.
Good progress has been made in the policy of mechanisation,"—
and so on. That is a very remarkable statement. In 1933, the expenditure on the Army was about £50,000 under £38,000,000. It is now proposed to expend upon the Army £43,500,000. Are we to gather, then, that in 1933 the Army was £6,000,000 more in decay than it is alleged to be now, or that it was really, as Lord Hailsham said, more efficient than before, although the expenditure had been cut down? I frankly confess that I find these statements extraordinarily hard to reconcile, and surely, for Estimates which, in a time of considerable financial stringency, show a large total increase, we should have a better reason than an ipse dixit that the Army-is in a state of apparent decay. Above all, I should like some reassurance as regards the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that we could not, without very prolonged delay, send abroad even three divisions. If that is the truth to-day, it must have been the truth in 1933, in 1926, and, indeed, during the whole of the last 10 years. I do not think I need enter into any further details.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Estimates this year bear a peculiar relationship to foreign policy, owing to the issue of the White Paper which we debated last Monday. My friends and I propose to vote against Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, because that is the only opportunity given to us to mark our disappointment at and our distrust of the foreign policy which the Government
have followed, and which has led, as they say in their own White Paper, to the necessity for this increase in the Estimates. The situation in March, 1935, is a deplorable one. I should have thought that in July of last year the omens for a successful foreign policy had never been so favourable since the end of the War. You had in that month a peculiar combination of events. There had been, first of all, on the 30th June, a massacre which served to confirm the opinion held, I hope, in all civilised nations of the character of the German Government and its leaders. There was at the same time the general acknowledgement by Europe that Russia should be invited into the League of Nations, and there was the approaching settlement of the old Italian and French difficulties, which for decades had been the chief stumbling-block in the way of arriving at a common European policy. In addition to that, we saw the collapse of the Nazi attempt upon Austria, which had served to awaken Italy to the danger of the Nazi régime; and there was the French policy which was leading to the Yugoslav-Italian entente, which is now an accomplished fact. In July of last year there was, technically, a diplomatic situation which looked better than at any time since the War.
That was a time, I should have thought, when it would have been comparatively easy to arrive at a joint policy which would, at the same time, disarm and conciliate Germany. It was a time when you could have arrived, it is true, not immediately but by gradual stages, at a policy designed to do two things—first of all, to make a fair offer to Germany—which would not be an offer by one Power or by two Powers, but by the whole of Europe—and, secondly, to show to Germany that, in default of the acceptance of a fair offer, not one Power or two Powers but the whole of Europe was determined to see that she should create no mischief in Europe. Those were, and they remain, the two primary considerations for peace. I do not propose to dwell upon the breakdown of the Disarmament Conference, which is, to some extent, alleged to necessitate this expenditure. I personally always held the view that disarmament conferences could not be wholly successful until the political difficulties had been tackled and settled, and it is on the failure of the
Government to tackle and to settle the political difficulties that I base my vote this evening. These Estimates are the direct consequence of that, and it is because they are a direct consequence, and because we have little or no faith in the ability of the Government to grasp the opportunities which are so constantly given to them, and because we believe that they have often and often missed the opportunity, that we are determined this evening to vote against them.
I earnestly hope that the events of the last 48 hours in Germany are not going to lead to any kind of panic either here or in the rest of Europe. It is, perhaps, on the whole as well that we should know more fully and more openly than we did before exactly where Germany stands to-day, and it may perhaps make it easier for the mission which we hope that the Foreign Secretary is still going to undertake. At the same time, if the Foreign Secretary is successful in his mission, it will not be because of his previous efforts, I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's approbation of those sentiments. I hope that he will convey them to his right hon. colleague the Secretary of State. I do not feel that any success which the Secretary of State may have in that mission will be due to the efforts which he has previously made. I believe that opportunities have been missed over and over again, and if this last chance of negotiating with Germany through an otherwise unified Europe is missed, then I think that we must all tremble at what the possible consequences may be.

5.48 p.m.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harcourt Johnstone), who, as usual, delivered a very able and clear speech, that we all hope that there will be no necessity for panic in Europe, but I do not quite agree with him on the strictures which he has passed upon these Estimates, in that he referred to them as merely being caused by the defence Paper which had been issued. I produced the greatest Army Estimate that the world has ever known, and I examined these Army Estimates with the very greatest care and compared them with those of other days. Has my hon. Friend examined the figures for the last
20 years? Does he realise that these Estimates are nearly £20,000,000 less than in 1922, and that they are £1,000,000 less than they were 10 years ago? I think that it will be the judgment of anybody who has considered the whole situation that these Estimates and their increase have no relation whatever to the Foreign Office actions of this Government or of any of the Governments of Europe. I should have thought that that had been successfully proved in the Debate which took place last Monday.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked us to consider the desirability of collective action. Collective action for what, and against whom? He still seems to think that it is much more Christian and holy to fire a bullet from a collective officer's rifle than it is from a nationalist officer's rifle. Wherein lies the difference? The Labour party to-day is back again where it was last Monday. If you are to have a war, does it make any great distinction from what rifle the shot is fired? I hope and believe, knowing them as I do, that my countrymen will not enter into a war except for honour and a just and honourable cause. The hon. Gentleman opposite laughs. Does he deny it?

Mr. WEST: I deny that any wars are entered into for honourable purposes.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me is speaking for himself and a few more. To my fellow-countrymen, this country is where it was in 1914, in that they would go into war if the honour of this country were at stake. I will deal with the other point raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, and may I say at once that nobody on that side of the House has a greater knowledge of the Army. When he was a Minister of the Crown and at the War Office, no one paid greater attention to his duty or performed his functions better. If I disagree with him to-day, I hope that he will understand that it is not in a spirit of carping criticism or of cavil. He seemed to laugh at the idea that any material part of this money was to be used for the betterment of the housing conditions of the soldier.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not want to be misunderstood on that point. I did not say that money was not to be used for that purpose, because there are various items, but what I did say was, that I questioned
very much whether the country, or the soldier in particular, is now getting proper value for money spent on housing, or has been getting it for some time.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that if he examines these Estimates and the White Paper attached to them very carefully, he will find that there is a very great improvement adumbrated in housing in what is called the modernisation of barracks in this country, and, what is more important in many ways, what is called modernisation of barracks abroad. It is all very well to stand up and gibe and sneer when a case is conclusively made out that part of these Estimates are directed to the social and moral welfare of the troops. It is undoubtedly so, and to use a slight increase in the Estimates for the purpose of belittling the efforts of this country in the interests of peace all over the world is an abuse of the Parliamentary procedure of this House. What are the facts? There is not any doubt that during the last 10 years the Army Estimates have been going down and down. What happens in every business when you have ceased to expend all that is absolutely necessary? We have tried time and again to show the countries of the world that we are a peace-loving people and have no desire for war, and I have no patience with the gibe which my hon. Friend has just made against the Foreign Secretary. If it is true that he has failed—and I do not believe that he has failed; he has shown a courage and an energy which have been quite remarkable—you might apply the same test to the colleague of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, namely, the right hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. A. Henderson), who is Chairman of the Disarmament Conference.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: The Disarmament Conference has not the executive authority of the Secretary of State or the foreign policy of a government.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: I do not think so at all. The comparison is just as valid, and I would be the last man in the world to say that the Disarmament Conference has failed because my right hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross has been the chairman. The imputation is the same—you can clothe it or word it in any way you like—with regard to the Estimates
for the Army. It was one of the numerous efforts both in this House and outside by means of which we as a country attempted to show the world that we were anxious and eager to fulfil the Treaty of Versailles and to create the air and atmosphere of disarmament throughout the whole of Europe. We are being challenged to-day because after 10 years of letting the Array go down, and with barracks which ought to have been put right three or four years ago in my hon. Friend's day, and in 1922 and 1923 when his party were in office, we venture to come forward now and say, "It is high time that these things were put right." Because we do that we are challenged with the view that this is all part of the iniquitous policy of the National Government never to lift a hand or to say a word in the interests of the peace of the world. The whole thing is humbug and preposterous.
May I deal again for a moment with the speech of my hon. Friend? He told the House of Commons—it is the House of Commons, because we understand these things, and not the country—"Do not be beguiled by the mechanised army, its tanks, its guns. You see them all there. There is no peace in the atmosphere. All that wonderful equipment that you see there means war." Is that really the fact? What we are doing in these Estimates and have tried to do is to increase our mechanised war arm. Does my hon. Friend want more men killed? By mechanisation you endanger fewer lives than in the past. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is a fact. Is that his policy? If a war is to break out, are we to sit with our hands still and our guns unloaded? Is that the idea? What of other countries—Germany, and the favoured Russia of the Labour party which has the best mechanised army in the world, and the best aeroplanes; I will not say the best navy. Russia has one of the best mechanised armies in the world. I am entitled to use the hypothesis, and I do it with no ill-will. If they attack, are we to have no mechanised army? Are we to have no army at all? Are we to stand by and do nothing? Is that the policy of hon. Members above the Gangway opposite? We say that we have to-day the barest minimum of an Army and that the country might very well be perturbed and enraged if any Government stood aloof
without making adequate preparations, at least on a minimum scale. Of course, they must be efficient preparations.

Mr. WEST: Does the right hon. Member seriously state that in his opinion the more the British Army is mechanised and the more the German Army or the Russian Army become mechanised, the fewer casualties there will be? If he states that, how does he account for the fact that in the last War, the most mechanised war in our history, we suffered the greatest number of casualties, and so did the other countries?

Sir I. MACPHERSON: I am merely quoting the opinions of some of the greatest experts with whom I have discussed this question. I know that a great many experts regard what I have said as an absolute fact. Never mind, for the moment, the number of men. My point is that hon. Members opposite are critical because we produce a mechanised Army. Are we going to stand by and allow others to build up great mechanised armies, when at any time we might be attacked? Is the hon. Member opposite prepared to stand up and say that he would face his fellow-countrymen and say: "Let them all mechanise. Let them all attack us. Let them have the finest mechanised armies in the world. We will do nothing, but we will allow this country of ours, which has given liberty and justice to the world, to be trampled on by an alien army." The hon. Member is, quite rightly, silent.

Mr. WEST: I have no desire to be silent.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: Most of the money that we have been spending recently has been spent on perfecting our Army. It has been devoted almost entirely to promoting efficiency in a mechanised army, if hon. Members like to call it that, and to bring about efficiency in every branch of the Army. It has also been utilised for bringing about efficiency in the Territorial Force. There is nothing that pleases me more than to find that in the Army Estimates of this year we have a guarantee that there is almost complete co-operation between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. In the speeches which have preceded mine, there was not a word said on that subject. In one of the most difficult and
most complicated situations that we have seen in this century, or in the last century, battalions of British troops rose to a very difficult situation on the Saar and have come back without a blemish on their escutcheon. Is it not a matter of satisfaction that that should have been so? Instead of carping criticism and the imputations hurled at the Foreign Secretary, who is engaged in dealing with a serious matter elsewhere, would it not have been courteous and manly to pay a tribute to those British soldiers who, in accordance with the traditions of the British Army, carried through their work like British gentlemen?

Mr. DAVID MASON: It was a collective force.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: I make bold to say that in the other countries concerned there would be no carping criticism such as there has been here. There would have been no gibes.

Mr. MASON: We have not gibed. The right hon. Gentleman gibed at the Labour Opposition. I am simply pointing out that it was a collective force on the Saar.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: I know that very well. It is a pleasure to pay a tribute to the other forces, but in this House of Commons one is surely entitled to pay a tribute to our own men. It must be a matter of great pleasure to the House to feel that those men acquitted themselves with dignity and honour in a most difficult situation.
I am delighted at the success of vocational training, because I took a personal interest in it in the old days. I am also delighted at the progress that has been made in education. It ought to be a matter of great pride to the Army that 18,000 certificates for education have been given to the young men of the Army. I am afraid that I have kept the House longer than I intended, but I felt that I must carry on the old traditions and say a few words about the Army. On this occasion it has given me very great pleasure to do so. It does not matter what gibes or imputations may be hurled at the British Army, or at the Foreign Secretary or at the National Government, many of us here, who know the difficulties that they have to overcome are willing by our vote and our speech to support them to-day.

6.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I rise chiefly to ask a few questions, and I want to be sure that I do not deal with subjects already touched upon. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend speak on the subject of improving the housing accommodation in the Army. That improvement is much required, and is long overdue. I am glad that at last he is going to do something towards effecting the necessary improvements, although he anticipates that it will take 15 years in order to bring the housing accommodation in most of the barrack quarters up to modern conditions.

Mr. HACKING: That is at the present rate of expenditure, but I hope that it may be possible to secure more expenditure in future years.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I am very glad to hear that, and I hope my right hon. Friend will get more money for that purpose. I was rather disquieted to hear for the first time a Minister from the War Office say that he was not satisfied with the efficiency of the Army. I was even more surprised to hear the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) complain that the Army was not efficient, and yet object to any expenditure required to make it efficient. That seemed to me to be rather a contradictory point of view.

Mr. LAWSON: I may not have made myself clear, but I thought that my argument was that the Army was efficient and that that was the view of previous Secretaries of State. I stood by that statement.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I am pleased that the hon. Member has made that point clear, but I certainly understood him to say otherwise. It is a matter of regret to a good many hon. Members that it was impossible for us to have a Debate on the three Defence (Services together. It is extremely difficult to deal with defence questions without infringing the Rules of Order. I should like to ask certain questions which are more or less common to the three Defence Services of the Crown. I should like to have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he is taking every possible precaution to ensure that there is full co-ordination between the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. For instance,
on such questions as public works, purchase of land, coast defence, etc., which are required by the three Services, it occurs to me that in many cases it might be more economical to employ land agents or valuers who are stationed near the proposed site, whether or not they belong to the Navy, Air Force or Army. There is another point to which I should like to draw attention, and that is to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is really satisfied that we are getting full value from Weedon. As an old cavalry officer, perhaps, it is not right that I should raise a question on such a matter as equitation, but I have wondered whether in these days of financial stringency we get full value for the £20,000 of expenditure on the school at Weedon. It seems to me that when young officers are able to go hunting on Government chargers they can learn enough equitation for the Army without having to be specially trained in trick jumping, which may be very desirable at Olympia, in order to compete with other nations at the horse show, but it is not of much military service.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street raised the question of Woolwich, and expressed the hope that the Arsenal would not be moved from its present situation. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether any decision has been come to as to the value of Woolwich as an ordnance centre, or whether it has been decided to remove the Arsenal to some place which is not so exposed to air attack as Woolwich. During the last war Woolwich was fairly lucky so far as air attack was concerned, but who is going to say that if we had the misfortune to be engaged in another war Woolwich would again be so fortunate. As a centre for the manufacture of warlike stores there is no place in the United Kingdom more vulnerable than Woolwich. I have seen statements in the newspapers that the Arsenal is not to be moved from Woolwich for political reasons. The political reasons may be good ones, but they do not really affect the question of military defence.
The last point to which I would call attention is the concluding paragraph in the memorandum with respect to research. Does the research into improved methods for prolonging the life of explosives relate to each of the three Services, or is Woolwich simply inquiring
into the question from the military point of view? Further, it seems to me rather extraordinary that the question of dealing with the efficiency of welds and riveting should be dealt with by the War Office. Surely that is a question which affects civilian life as much as the Army, the Navy and the Air Force? The Committee of Industrial Research would be the right body to conduct inquiry in that direction. Finally, the Memorandum states that important progress has been made in the application of wireless telegraphy and telephony to military problems. I should like to know whether the War Office are in close contact with the Post Office and with the experiments that are going on in the Post Office with regard to wireless telegraphy and telephony. We have a small army, and while we hope that it is very efficient and trust that it will never be required as it was in 1914, yet it should be ready. Even in these difficult times we should strive to maintain its efficiency and ensure that the country gets full value for the money spent.

6.15 p.m.

Major MILNER: I have always regretted that the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) does not speak more often in the House. He has made a most amazing speech, and during the course of it did very great injustice to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).

Sir I. MACPHERSON: Let me say at once that I am one of the last persons who would desire to do an injustice to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).

Major MILNER: The right hon. Gentleman may have done so unwittingly; nevertheless, I think that injustice was done, and I will point out in what way. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be somewhat indignant that a tribute had not been paid to the troops who have returned from the Saar. My hon. Friend did pay such a tribute, as did also the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Again, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that my hon. Friend objected to the mechanisation of the Army. There
again he is quite wrong. My hon. Friend has no objection, and said so, to the mechanisation of the Army. What he did say was that the mechanised army as it exists to-day was sufficient and was efficient, and that he took no objection to a mechanised army, as such. The right hon. Gentleman made two strange statements. He asked what difference it made if you were shot by a weapon in the cause of collective security or by a nationally-owned weapon.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: The hon. and learned Member will realise that a nationally-owned weapon is fired in a good cause.

Major MILNER: I do not recollect thnt the right hon. Gentleman made that distinction. Surely there is all the difference in the world. The right hon. Gentleman is preaching anarchy. He is saying that every man and every nation should be the judge in their own cause.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: Is not every great nation a judge in its own cause?

Major MILNER: Our contention is that it should submit its case to an international tribunal, and I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman has probably preached that principle. If I hit the right hon. Gentleman brutally and violently on the head as he leaves the House to-night, will he hit me back—I am a bigger man than he is—or will he report to a policeman and invoke the common police force of the land? I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would invoke the aid of the police force. That is all the difference in the world. We say that no nation should be the judge of its own cause, and that by collective security we can get justice done, get the right thing done, better than we can in any other way. The right hon. Gentleman also said quite definitely that the Estimates have no relation to the White Paper on Defence. Let me quote from the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War:
The reasons of high policy which have led His Majesty's Government to take stock of the position of the Defence Forces of the Crown are set out in the statement relating to Defence just published and need not be recapitulated here save in so far as they affect the Military Forces.
Quite clearly from the memorandum itself, these Estimates are vitally affected
by the White Paper on Defence. There are one or two features about the Estimates to which I desire to call attention. The first is the increase which has taken place during the last seven years in the amount of the Estimates. This year they are almost £4,000,000 over 1934, £6,000,000 over 1933, and £7,500,000 over the Estimates of 1932. We are discussing to-day the highest Army Estimates for the last seven years. But the alarming nature of the Estimates, in my opinion, is that they are accompanied by a memorandum in which the Secretary of State says:
In the deliberate judgment of the Government the time has now arrived when action should be taken to bring our military preparations more up to date and provision is included in these Estimates for expenditure on matériel and for some increase in numbers as an instalment of a programme which will necessarily spread over a series of years.
We are entering to-day upon a largely increased expenditure on the Army, which the Government envisage is going to continue over a series of years. That, in my judgment, is the important matter. I recognise, and no doubt many of my hon. friends recognise, that there are a good many matters which require bringing up to date. No doubt a considerable sum is included in the Estimates for barracks, and I shall be grateful if some portion Of the money which is to be spent on the improvement of barracks will be expended on the barracks in Leeds. For probably 150 years they were a private residence, and for 25 years, to my knowledge, a girls' school, and for a further 25 years have been a barracks for two or three units, inadequate, dismal, and useless for the purpose of training troops. I hope that a little of the money to be spent will go towards the improvement of those barracks.
Another disquieting feature of the Estimates is the large increase for munitions of war. There is an increase in the amount provided for the supply of warlike stores of £2,000,000, half as much again as in the Estimates for 1934. The gun ammunition provided for is three times as great as the amount in 1934, twice as much is being spent on anti-gas equipment, three times as much on searchlights, signals and equipment; and one and a-half times as much on armoured cars and tanks, and twice as much on other mechanical vehicles. The
obvious conclusion to be drawn is that the Government are not so much patching up barracks, as—to use a naval phrase—clearing for action. They are laying in a stock of munitions of war, both large and small, tanks, armoured cars, anti-gas equipment; in fact, they are in process almost of mobilising. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] The Financial Secretary certainly gave me that impression. He said that for years past we have been short of this, that and the other, and now because of the state of Europe, the White Paper and what is happening in Germany, it was necessary to lay in a stock which could not be provided at short notice by the nation. In my submission, so far as a large part of this expenditure is concerned, the Government are clearing for action.

Mr. HACKING: This is a very important point, and I want to make it clear. I think I did say—I am sure I did—that this was only an instalment and, therefore, obviously we are not clearing for action at this moment.

Major MILNER: I am glad to be corrected, but the Financial Secretary does not reassure me in the least. He is now saying precisely what I have said, that this is a mere instalment, that the Government are laying in stocks which they have not thought necessary to lay in, although the Conservative party have been in office largely during the last 10 or 15 years.

Mr. HACKING: The reason why we have not been building and preparing and have not tried to replace equipment, except during the last two or three years, is that we hoped other countries would follow our example in connection with disarmament. We cannot go on for ever becoming weaker and weaker.

Major MILNER: There, again, I am afraid that I cannot accept that point of view, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us a few days ago that it was because of our financial situation that the Government had not done all that the Conservative party would like to have done in this matter. While we all had hoped that these negotiations might have come to fruition—I should be foolish if I said that this was not in the mind of the Government—yet our stocks require this additional expenditure because the financial situation has prevented
the Government doing all that they would have liked to have done. However that may be, we on these benches feel that the increase in these Estimates, the issue of the White Paper and the fact that the Estimates of the Navy and Air Force have also been increased, show that what the Government are doing is driving this country towards the very catastrophe that they profess, quite sincerely no doubt, to be trying to avoid. That is the fear of those on the Labour benches. I, for one, do not take any very great exception to the increases as such. I take exception to considerable portions of them, to the increase in stocks of munitions and so on, but I do not regard the Estimates as a whole, as they stand apart from other things, as necessarily being wholly bad. But taking these Estimates in conjunction with the White Paper, and looking upon them as a symptom of the attitude of the Government towards all these matters, we regard them very seriously indeed. We believe that the Estimates and the White Paper coming out at the same time constitute a gross blunder and a crime for which this country may yet suffer greater agonies than any it suffered in the last War. We regard the Government's policy in that respect as being one of absolute despair.
I want now to address myself to another question in which, I think, I shall have the sympathy of all parts of the House. The matter is, I think I can truthfully say, a non-party matter, and I want to deal with it as such. I am emboldened to do so by reading that portion of the Report on the British Army in 1934 headed "Recruiting." The report shows a steady decline in recruiting from April to November of last year. It indicates that last year the smallest number of recruits was forthcoming for at least 10 years past. In other words there have been more recruits each year for 10 years than we succeeded in obtaining during 1934. Does it not strike the House that very possibly what is known as the Army ex-ranker officers' claim might have a very serious effect on the possibilities of recruiting? The House is aware that that claim relates for the most part to senior non-commissioned officers, warrant officers, sergeant-majors and
so on, who were pensioned prior to the Great War or were serving soldiers during the War and were discharged without pension for the purpose of being commissioned. For the most part they were senior non-commissioned officers and warrant officer instructors, and every one of us who served in any capacity in the Army will agree that they were, as they always have been, its backbone. It is that particular class to whom this claim refers. Many of them served in the Army 20, 30 and even more years. Their fathers served before them, and their grandfathers, and their brothers and frequently their children served during the War. Then they found that they and they alone were left out when the question of granting adequate retired pay came to be considered by the Government.
There have been a good many statements on the subject made in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has, in the past at any rate, sympathetically regarded this claim, as indeed did many of the present Members of the Government. In recent months many statements on this matter have been made which have not been strictly accurate, and I propose quite shortly to deal with them. I have said that all other classes serving under the same conditions and having the same change of status as the ex-ranker officers have received their appropriate and adequate retired pay. They included the permanently commissioned non-commissioned officers, ranker officers of the Indian Army, Marines who served in the Army alongside the ranker officers, and those ex-ranker officers who were commissioned after May, 1918. The class to which I have referred are the only ones left out. All who served alongside them and under the same conditions and in the same places have received appropriate retired pay.
What are the contentions that have always been advanced against the admission of this claim? They are these: First, the question of cost. It has been said within recent months by the Financial Secretary, in answer to questions put by myself and others, that the cost of admitting this claim would be a sum of £10,000,000. I assert, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to contradict me,
that the cost of admitting this claim today would be nothing like that. In 1924, when the first calculations were made, the cost would have been £175,000 per annum only, and to-day the sum would not exceed £100,000 per annum, a less sum than we pay every year for recruiting. There is no question whatever of £10,000,000 or anything like it. The sum is £100,000 a year, and capitalised that is less than £1,000,000. It is said that if this claim is admitted there will be many consequental claims directly arising out of that admission. I assert, and again challenge the right hon. Gentleman to contradict me, that there are no other consequential claims of any sort or kind which could by any possibility directly arise out of the admission of the ex-ranker officers' claim. The statement to which I have referred has been made by the War Office and its representatives for 10 years or more, and I assert that there is no foundation whatever for it.
There is no other class of men which did not receive appropriate retired pay when they changed their status, as these men did by becoming officers when serving ill the ranks. Hon. Members who have served in the Army know the difference of status. The officer has a status and position to keep up. The ex-ranker officers in almost all instances, certainly in the great majority of cases, were persuaded to take commissions. They would have been better off if they had not done so, but under pressure and at the request of their commanding officers and so on they took commissions. They have suffered as a result. The distinction is that change of status. There is no other class which made that change of status and which can be quoted as similar in all respects to the ex-ranker officers. There is no consequential claim which can possibly arise out of the admission of this claim. The Financial Secretary, in answer to questions, has said that there is the case of the captain who became a colonel. But in that case there is no change of status; the man was an officer all the time.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: And the commissioned non-commissioned officer lost his separation allowance.

Major MILNER: Yes, he lost his separation allowance and many other things. He lost the increased pension to which he would have been entitled
had he continued to serve as a noncommissioned officer. He is now receiving 4s. 4d. a day. There were lieutenants, captains, majors and colonels, and there were even some generals among them. Some of them are receiving 4s. 4d. a day, but had they continued to servo in the Army as non-commissioned officers they would have received 6s. 8d. a day. Then it is said that the matter has been discussed and decided upon by a Committee appointed by the Government in 1924. That Committee was composed of three eminent, and I am sure perfectly fair and impartial, individuals. But they had no knowledge whatever of the Army or Army Orders. They had before them as witness and as their sole adviser a representative of the War Office. That representative of the War Office gave evidence against the ex-ranker officers. He was the only person with knowledge of the appropriate Army Orders. The members of the tribunal had no knowledge of Army Orders, and they dealt with the matter as a legal one, and not, as the ex-ranker officers contended it should have been dealt with, as a merely equitable one. Hence the decision to which they came.

Mr. HACKING: Was there not a representative of the ex-ranker officers present?

Major MILNER: Certainly, and he gave evidence, but he neither had the knowledge nor the appropriate Army Orders to which to refer. The members of the tribunal ought to have had independent advice on that matter. Contrast that case with the case of the Marines who came under the Admiralty. They served alongside some of these ranker officers, under the same conditions, and at the same places, and they did exactly the same work. They went to the Admiralty, and the Admiralty set up a committee consisting of naval officers who knew the regulations and were competent to deal with them. That tribunal without question admitted the claim of the Marines just as, in my submission, any committee composed of military men, or those who knew the regulations, would be bound to grant the claim of the ex-ranker officers. It has been stated that the pension of these particular individuals was re-assessed. But the pension of every non-commissioned officer or warrant
officer was re-assessed, and the ex-ranker officers were in no way specially favoured.
I have dealt with the question of the alleged legal rights. There are many other points to which I could address myself. It will be within the recollection of the House that no fewer than 325 Members of this House have approved and entered their names to a Motion asking that this matter should be reconsidered. As this is a democratic country and democratic House of Commons I should have thought that the Government would have acceded to a request supported by a majority of Members of the House. I make this further suggestion. Will the right hon. Gentleman be so good as to ask the appropriate authority, the Secretary of State for War or the Lord President of the Council, to appoint a select committee of this House, preferably composed of men who have served in the Army and have a knowledge of Army regulations, to go into this question. It used to be said that an officer spent the first seven years of his Army life studying allowance regulations. Without meaning any offence, I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman represented that it was the desire of the House that there should be a select committee, composed of those with knowledge of the subject and if such a committee were set up, it would relieve the House from the obligation of discussing this matter further and I feel sure would be satisfactory to those who have for so many years been putting forward what in my view is a just claim.
The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech to-day by appealing to the House, at this moment, when, as he said, we might be approaching a crisis, to strengthen the Army and make it efficient in regard to recruiting and so forth. I would use his own words and say that at this moment when we may be approaching a crisis and when the figures of recruiting are falling year by year as they have done for many years past, would it not be a right and proper, and indeed a judicious act, on the part of the Government to mete out justice to the ex-ranker officers? I receive week by week, almost day by day, letters from men who served for many years in high ranks and who are now unemployed, or receiving poor relief. Many of them are in great distress and
almost in despair. I also receive letters from the widows of deceased officers—men who served for many years whose fathers and whose grandfathers in some cases served in His Majesty's Forces. Their widows to-day are acting as charwomen and cleaners or subsisting on Poor Law relief. When the House is considering Estimates such as these, are we going to pass over the claims of those who did their bit or tried to do it between 1914 and 1918? I sincerely hope that there will be such an expression of feeling on this subject from all parts of the House that the Government will feel, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has put it, that at this moment at any rate when we may be approaching a crisis, it is but right and just to make some reparation to the men who have for so long been putting forward this claim.

6.50 p.m.

Captain LUMLEY: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
in view of the important role assigned to the Territorial Army in the system of national defence, this House considers that improvements in the pay, training, and conditions of service of the Territorial Army are needed to increase its numbers and efficiency.
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office devoted a considerable portion of his statement today to the Territorial Army. That attention on his part will be noted with appreciation by those who are interested in the subject. I would also like to assure him that the concessions about allowances and other matters which he announced will be welcome. Each of those concessions will have its effect and although some of us wish that they could go further, and will ask that the extension of one of them at least should be considered, yet I recognise that in the Estimates of this year, for the first time in many years, the Territorial soldier will receive an increase in his allowances instead of the reductions which have been the rule ever since 1925. I shall return later to the consideration of some of these concessions, but I wish at once to say, "Thank you," to my right hon. Friend for what he has been able to announce.
It is not surprising that a good deal of concern is felt, especially by Territorial associations, about the recruiting
and general efficiency of the Territorial Army if we consider the importance of the role which has been placed upon them. Very serious responsibilities have now been laid upon the Territorial soldier and the Territorial associations—responsibilities which are far larger than any that have ever been placed in our past history on any of our auxiliary forces, whether the Territorial Force of pre-war days, or the Volunteers, or the Militia or the Yeomanry which was raised in the days of Napoleon, I do not think it is sufficiently recognised, outside the circle of those who are specially interested in the Territorial Army, how great are those responsibilities, and it is worth while to restate them. The best way of explaining them is to compare the responsibilities of the Territorial Army to-day with what they were before the War. Then the position was that there was, first, the Regular Army, ready to go anywhere should occasion arise. Behind it was the Militia, also ready to proceed oversea and to reinforce the regular Army, and third, came the Territorial Force which was enlisted in those days for home defence. There was then no obligation on Territorial soldiers to serve oversea.
What is the position to-day? There is, first, a much smaller regular Army with fewer reservists to fill up its ranks. There is no Militia and there is nothing further behind the regular Army to provide it with immediate reinforcements. In fact, the only force behind the regular Army is now the Territorial Army and I think it is true to say that the regular Army of to-day with its five divisions would, in any great emergency, only be the advance guard and that the main body of the Army would be found by the Territorials. It is an indication of the changed role of the Territorial Army that every officer and man is now required to undertake the obligation to serve oversea. The role of the Territorial Army, therefore, can be summarised as follows: First it is for home defence. Second, in any great emergency it will form the main body of His Majesty's Army. Third, it will be the sole means of expansion. Fourth, it is under an obligation to serve oversea. Finally, to-day, it is mainly upon the Territorial Army that the responsibility rests for the defence of our home ports
against naval attack and for the land anti-aircraft defences of the country.
What is the deduction to be made from these responsibilities? It seems to me they mean that, in the present reduced state of our regular Army, any but the very smallest campaign would require the embodiment or partial embodiment of the Territorial Army, either to set free regular troops or to reinforce them. Let us look at the state of the force upon which this heavy responsibility has been placed. Ever since the Territorial Army was reconstituted in 1921 there has been one striking feature about it and that is the shortage of recruits. The present establishment of the Territorial Army, exclusive of coast defence troops is, I believe, 162,600 officers and men. But ever since its reconstitution it has never been anything like up to that establishment and at the present moment the position is as bad as, if not worse than, it has ever been. The deficiency on 1st October last was 37,500 or nearly one-quarter of the establishment and I believe there has been no improvement in recent months. It is true that in some years the deficiency has been larger in numbers but only in those years when special causes were operating, such as in 1932 when the camps were suspended and in 1927 and the two following years after the abolition of the bounty. But since those two years there has been some reduction in the establishment and I think at the present time there are fewer men enrolled in the Territorial Army than at any time in the last 10 years except 1932.
There is no need to go into a panic about this state of affairs, but it can hardly be considered satisfactory for a force which carries such a heavy responsibility. The shortage of men reduces the efficiency of the force. There are many units to-day which, if called upon to mobilise, would have to increase their present numbers by 50 per cent. and that could only be done either by bringing in a large number of men with no training, which would prolong the period required for preparation, or else by drawing upon the small reservoir of trained Territorial reserves and that would greatly handicap any expansion which might be required. This recruiting position seems to justify the concern felt by many Members of this House, and by Territorial associations a concern certainly not diminished by the events of the
week-end. I, therefore, think that the Government are right in turning their attention to the question: "What can be done to improve the position?" I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends, if fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will have specific suggestions to offer for the encouragement of recruiting and I think that my best course in beginning this part of the discussion is to try to indicate the general lines which I think we ought to pursue, rather than to deal with a great number of details.
If we are to attract more recruits I suggest that we must succeed in three things. First, we must arouse interest in the Territorial Army. Second, we must make it worth while for men to join. Third, we must retain the interest of those who have joined so that they may become in their districts real recruiting agencies for the Territorial Army. There is much that I could say about the last of these three things, but to save time I propose to confine myself to the first two. No one can persuade me that it is impossible to find an extra 38,000 men of the right stamp, if it is clearly understood what the role of the Territorial Army is. That these men do not at present come forward is, I believe, largely due to the fact that the Territorial Army has not the prestige in the country which it ought to have and which it deserves. It is not taken sufficiently seriously in many quarters, and it is regarded as a kind of survival from pre-War days which can hardly be expected to interest the modern young man. That kind of view may be overcome in time if the importance of the role of the Territorial Army is emphatically stated by responsible people, especially in the way in which my right hon. Friend stated it, and if the importance of that role is continually repeated. It would also be removed if the War Office will neglect no opportunity of increasing the prestige of the Territorial Army. There are many small things which might be done in that respect, but I will not delay the House.
One other cause of the lack of interest in the Territorial Army may perhaps be perfectly legitimate talk about the League of Nations and some rather less legitimate pacifist propaganda. Some people perhaps
have become muddled in their minds and think that it is inconsistent to support the League of Nations and at the same time join the Territorial Army. The very reverse is the truth. It is not necessary to be a militarist to become a Territorial. Nevertheless we ought to try to solve doubts such as these. A clear statement of the reasons why Territorial soldiers are needed should be made. I would state it in these words: A Territorial soldier may be needed for two purposes, first to defend his country if it should be attacked, and, secondly, to help this country to carry out its treaty obligations and its obligations to the League of Nations. The first of these becomes the duty of every citizen as soon as the emergency arises, and it is surely not asking a great deal that a very small proportion of our citizens should have some training before it does arise. The second is now no less important, and I would like to give one example. We all know now that hon. Gentlemen opposite wish the League of Nations had taken action when Japan occupied Manchuria. Let us suppose that they had been the Government of the day and that they had been successful in getting the League of Nations to take up this question. They would first have tried economic sanctions, but if these had not proved sufficient they would, as we now know, have used our armed forces in conjunction with those of other Powers. In that event, even if our contingent had been confined only to the Regular Army, it would have been very doubtful if sufficient Regular troops could have been found without calling upon the Territorial Army to replace some of our overseas garrisons. There is one example, by no means a farfetched one, which shows how the Territorial Army may be required to help the country to carry out its obligations to the League of Nations, and it is one also which shows that support of the League of Nations should prevent no one from joining the Territorial Army. In fact, it ought to suggest to many that there are other duties to the League of Nations besides talking about it.
If doubts such as these can be resolved, and if the prestige of the Territorial Army can be raised, we shall have gone some way to arouse fresh interest in the Territorial Army. Once you have a man interested, he will look to see whether it is worth his while to join. What does
he find to-day? He finds that he is asked to undertake considerable responsibility. He is required not only for home defence. He may be required to leave his employment and his family and to go abroad for an indefinite period even on an occasion which would not be called a first-class war. He will naturally ask what he gets in return, and he will find that this country has given him for many years past very little in return. There is no doubt—and certainly this view is held by many Territorial associations—that there are many men who are keen to join to-day but who, when they look into it, find that it is not worth their while to do so and until the Government are prepared to make it worth their while recruiting will continue to be bad.
I recognise that in these matters it is no use asking for concessions which will cost a great deal of money. For that reason I do not press for the restoration of the bounty to the figure of £5 at which it was before the reduction started in 1925, although the statistics of recruiting show that considerable reductions in recruiting followed every reduction in the bounty. If we are going into practical politics, we must confine ourselves to concessions on a smaller scale. These concessions announced by my right hon. Friend to-day will go some way to meet the repeated representations of Territorial associations. The allowance for attending drills has been a sore point for a long time and if it works out, as I hope it will, it will be received with real gratitude by the Associations. The increased allowances for efficiency for specialists will also be welcomed, and will also have an effect on the efficiency of the service. It is clearly of great importance, if the Territorial Army ever has to expand, that there should be a good number of men already trained in those specialised duties which will require a much longer period of training than may be available in an emergency.
There is, however, one point about this increased allowance on which I would ask the assistance of my right hon. Friend. It is primarily a matter for the Minister of Labour, but the War Office cannot remain indifferent to it. If the men who receive the allowances—and who are unemployed and not in benefit and therefore under the Unemployment Assistance Board—continue, as I believe they
do, in some areas to have these small allowances in their pay taken into account in their determination of need, so that they are no better off for the extra work which they have put in to make themselves efficient, the effect of this concession in some areas will be nullified. There are many commanders of units and brigadiers in areas where there is heavy unemployment who have found that men who are keen to put in as much time as possible during their unemployment to make themselves efficient in these duties get very discouraged when they find that the small extra payments they receive are used to reduce their unemployment determination. If my right hon. Friend could help to get these allowances disregarded, the effect of his concession would be very greatly increased.
The most important of the concessions which my right hon. Friend announced is that which refers to marriage allowances. I suppose for the Territorials a much better description would be separation allowances. Nearly every Territorial association in the country has represented that the age limit of 26 has been a very big deterrent to recruiting. The announcement of my right hon. Friend, therefore, will be welcomed, but I am sorry that the concession has been limited to re-engaged non-commissioned officers, and re-engaged men when they become non-commissioned officers. I wish it had been possible to abolish the age limit for all men, and I would ask my right hon. Friend when he comes to reply to tell us what would be the additional cost if he had to abolish the age limit for all men, as well as non-commissioned officers. I realise that this estimate cannot be calculated with certainty, but I should be surprised if the figure amounted to more than £10,000 or £15,000.
If that is the case, I would ask my right hon. Friend to tell us also what is the reason which prevents him from making the full concession. It has been said on previous occasions in the House that it would be difficult to make this concession without opening the door to similar demands from the Regular Army and even from the Navy. If that is the argument, all I can say is that it is one which will not bear one moment's examination. As my right hon. Friend himself indicated in his speech, it is impossible to compare the position of a
man who is a soldier all the year round, living in barracks, with that of a man who is a civilian for 50 weeks in the year, lives in his own home, and is a soldier for only two weeks. There is this further distinction which I would like to urge upon my right hon. Friend: that the Regular Army does not want a large number of married men. It does not want to provide them with married quarters, nor to transfer them overseas when the unit moves abroad. It is really accommodation which is the difficulty in the Regular Army about marriage allowances; but in the Territorial Army there is no question of accommodation and the Territorial Army does need these married men, because the young married man is the best type of recruit to have. With the conditions and the needs of the two Armies so different, it seems unjustifiable to make any comparison between them on this question of marriage allowances.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us the cost of the full concession and, if it is not great, to see if he can make the full concession, because it is one which will have more effect on recruiting than anything else. When you consider that some Territorials have even been threatened with prosecution for not maintaining their families without the aid of public assistance during their two weeks in camp, you can realise what a deterrent it is for a young maried man who is thinking of joining the Territorial Army when he finds that there is no separation allowance for him during his annual training. If cost is the chief obstacle to giving the whole concession, would my right hon. Friend consider lowering the age limit from 26 to 24 for men? The cost of that would probably be infinitesimal and it would be a distinct help. These concessions of my right hon. Friend, I wish to make it perfectly clear, will go some way to persuade the would-be recruit that it is worth his while to join the Territorial Army, and if we can obtain some slight extension of them, particularly on this separation allowance question, he would, without great cost, considerably increase the effect of his concession.
There are two small suggestions which I would like to put forward for consideration for the encouragement of recruiting. The first is this: Most Territorial associations find that there is no great difficulty
in making the artillery and specialised units up to establishment, but the real difficulty is to find recruits for the infantry battalions. There are a very large number of keen cyclists in the country to-day, many of them organised into admirable cycling clubs. Would it not be possible, in those battalions which find special difficulty in obtaining recruits, to convert one company into a cyclists' company? I believe if that could be done you would be tapping a new source of supply, and these battalions might even' find their numbers greatly increased.
The second suggestion which I would like to put forward is that some units, not very many, have always been able to recruit up to establishment and would find it easy to recruit over the establishment. Why not allow those units which Can do so to recruit 15 per cent., say, over their establishment? I do not think that would cost anything at all, and you need not allow them to take to camp any more than their proper establishment, but it would mean that those units would always be able to take to camp their full establishment, because even if a unit is recruited up to strength, we know that at the last minute various things happen which prevent some men going to camp. Last year, in particular, there were a number of men who had found jobs after considerable unemployment and who did not dare risk leaving their employment for two weeks and so did not go to camp. If there had been this reserve of 15 per cent. above the establishment, it would have been possible for those units to have gone to camp at full strength, and that would greatly have helped their efficiency. These Estimates are notable for the fact that for the first time in 10 years they bring some advantage to the Territorial soldier, upon whose back have been placed such heavy responsibilities. My right hon. Friend can be assured that there is a large body of opinion in this House and outside it which will welcome his announcement and will give him every support if he is able to make a still further extension of his concessions.

7.17 p.m.

Major WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for York (Captain Lumley) on his very interesting
and able speech and also on his choice, for no more important subject, I think, could have been raised in this Debate than the problems and the tasks of the Territorial Army. They are questions which have been exercising the consideration of the Government, the War Office, and the Territorial Army for some time, but it is only comparatively recently that attention has been focussed on specific proposals. In the first place, I should also like to thank the Financial Secretary for the concessions which have been made, and while I have no doubt they will be much appreciated, I regret that they are of such a minor character. Beneficial as the marriage allowance and specialist pay concessions undoubtedly will be, particularly with regard to securing a greater number of re-enlistments, I do not think they will have any appreciable effect on recruiting itself. Recruiting is still most unsatisfactory, and I believe that that can partly be explained, apart altogether from the propaganda of our hon. friends opposite, by overloading the willing horse with all kinds of onerous duties and obligations, coupled with an inadequate consideration and reward. I still think that the greatest incentive to recruiting would be at the very least a partial, if not total, restoration of the old bounty of £5 a year, distributed as to 30s. representing the present proficiency grant, and as to 1s. for every drill up to a maximum of 70s. I always think it is better to distribute the bounty in that way than to give a flat rate as at present, because there is no inducement for the keen Territorial soldier who does two or three parades a week but gets the same-return as the man who only puts in the minimum number of drills required of him. I do not think this concession would cost a great deal, particularly when one considers it in proportion to the services that are rendered.
During the last 15 years we have witnessed a steady decline in the amount of the bounty that is paid and at the same time we have seen a steady increase in the obligations and tasks of the Territorial Army, and I would like for a moment to remind the House what those obligations are and what changes have taken place since the late Lord Haldane formed the Territorial Force in 1907. In those days the only obligation that was asked of the men was that they should be ready for home
defence if needed. That did not seem to be, nor was it, a very onerous obligation, because the Territorial Force was only the third in the echelon of the nation's military forces, the Militia or Special Reserve standing between it and the Regular Army. The danger of the personnel therefore losing their jobs at short notice did not exist, or at any rate was remote. Volunteer soldiering was not so much a serious job as a hobby, and camp the annual holiday. That, I think, was the position in 1907, and in 1914, and again when the Territorial Force was reconstituted after the War. In those days when an emergency arose each officer and man had to be asked specifically whether he would or would not accept liability for service overseas, and while there is no doubt that most of them would accept that liability, as they did in 1914, there was no compulsion in the matter at all. The changes introduced by the territorial army and militia act of 1921, however, were revolutionary, for whereas for many hundreds of years up to that time the volunteer units of this country had been organised for home defence only, now, by a single measure, the Territorial Force, or as it now became the Territorial Army, was made available for service' overseas, subject, of course, only to the formality of an Act of Parliament.
This change has altered the whole basis of service, and although it took place some 14 years ago, I do not think it has ever been properly appreciated or understood in all its implications by successive Governments, by the War Office, or by the general public. Moreover, this obligation for overseas service on the part of the Territorial Army is all the more serious when one considers the reductions that have been made since the War in the Regular Army and the disappearance altogether of the old second line and draft-finding Militia. It is now possible for the Territorial soldier to be called upon to leave his civil employment and proceed overseas for some emergency which is not necessarily of major or national importance. In other words, the Territorial Army to-day is an expeditionary force. I quite agree that it has other functions, such as those mentioned by the Financial Secretary, for example, being the basis of expansion for a national army and the full responsibility for coastal and anti-aircraft defence. But the most onerous, the most difficult,
burden of all is this question of providing a field army or expeditionary force, and I do not mean in the event of a national war. That presents no practical difficulties at all, and no separate obligations, because in that event the whole nation, not only the Territorial Army, would be mobilised in one form or another.
It is a different matter, however, when any occasion arises, say, for the policing of territory such as the recent policing of the Saar or for the fulfilment of any obligation under the Treaty of Locarno or the Covenant of the League of Nations. One can visualise the situation arising in those circumstances, when four or five divisions of the Regular Army would be sent overseas—incidentally the only, divisions that are available in this country to-day—and if such an emergency did arise, it would at once set up stresses in the Territorial Army and bring them into the picture. It is important, therefore, that the role of the Territorial Army in those circumstances should be properly defined and clearly understood, because if four or five divisions of the Regular Army were asked to go overseas on some policing or other venture, then the Territorial Army would have to be partially, if not wholly, mobilised to take their places at home, and if more than five Regular divisions were asked to go overseas, the Territorial Army would probably have to send some divisions or units, at any rate, overseas as well, either to take part in those particular operations or else to act in garrisons in some Imperial or foreign State. Whatever the action taken in an emergency of this kind, however, there seems no doubt that the Territorial Army as a whole, or part of it, would be embodied and the members be called upon to leave their skilled professions or employment at a moment's notice and go overseas. This is a vast responsibility and one which the Territorial soldier is quite prepared to fulfil, only he does consider that he wants some more adequate recognition for the services he has rendered and the sacrifices he is pledged to make. What is really happening at the present time is that the nation is receiving the services of a first-class military machine largely through the generosity and self-sacrifice, both in time and money, of the Territorial officers and men.
Another question which arises through this new role assigned to the Territorial Army is whether or not the Territorial Army as at present organised is capable of producing the maximum of efficiency in both its main tasks of home defence and of expeditionary force, and I think we are bound to admit that, high though the standard of efficiency and training is, there is a great deal to be said for the reorganisation of the Territorial Army in order to bring it up to the standard of a modern army, with all the necessary support weapons and auxiliary troops to make the divisions complete for service overseas. In order to do this, there were two methods that could have been adopted. One was to keep the Territorial Army with its present organisation and start new units altogether, army corps units, with the usual lines of communication troops and additional air defence units, and that is what most Territorial officers would have preferred to see, but we quite realise that to do that at the present time would be a very costly business, and in the present state of recruiting might be unsatisfactory. Therefore, I am very glad that the Financial Secretary has been able to announce to-day that the reorganisation will take the second form, and that is that there will be a reduction in the number of the Territorial divisions and that selected units will be converted into new anti-aircraft defence units for London and the manufacturing towns of the north. I hope that some of those units will also be converted into the necessary—

Mr. HACKING: Steps have been taken with regard to anti-aircraft defence units. The scheme has only been worked out for London and the district around, but nothing has yet been worked out for the other parts of the country.

Major WATT: I am obliged, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman at any rate to anticipate that something was to be done for the North in the next few years. If that be the policy, it will be generally welcomed by the Territorial Army as a whole, though there is naturally bound to be a considerable amount of heartburning among those units which are selected for conversion, and certain prejudices will have to be overcome. I do not think, however, that those difficulties, though serious, will be insurmountable, because there is no reason
why the selected units should not maintain their prestige and their traditions in the same way as did the old yeomanry regiments in 1920, when they were converted into artillery, armoured cars, and signals.
In this matter of reorganisation, I was particularly glad to see in the Army Estimates this year that provision was being made for the addition of brigade majors to the staffs of Territorial infantry brigades. This is an excellent innovation, particularly if the opportunity is taken to give more Territorial brigades to the command of Territorial officers, for with a Regular brigade major and a Territorial brigade commander the position would be no worse. It would be analogous to the present position of Territorial battalions with Regular adjutants. If that be so, I hope these Territorial brigade commanders will be given the rank, not of colonel, but of brigadier. I have never been able to appreciate why there should have been the distinction drawn between Territorial brigade commanders and Regular brigade commanders. I hope that this suggestion will be considered because it will give greater scope to the keen and efficient senior officer, and, at the same time, it will help to open up and accelerate the promotion of the junior officers which, in some units, is absurdly slow owing to commanding officers staying on for five, six and even eight years.
Another matter which I would like to mention is the anomaly that exists with regard to certain Supplementary Reserve units of the Royal Engineers and the Royal Corps of Signals. Many of these Supplementary Reserve units are housed in the same drill halls as Territorial units of the same arms, and yet, although the supplementary reservists do exactly the same work and fulfil, to all outward appearances, at any rate, to all same obligations, they receive from £6 to £20 a year in bounties, while the Territorial soldier gets the handsome reward of 30s. a year. It is not to be (wondered at that there is a certain amount of bitterness and ill-feeling on the part of the Territorials and that re-enlistments are adversely affected in consequence. If the War Office considers that these Army troop companies of the Supplementary Reserve are necessary, they should be kept in headquarters entirely separate from the Territorial units of these arms.
I wish to make a final point with regard to continuity of policy. This is a matter upon which Territorial officers feel very keenly, because it seems to them that the efficiency of the Territorial Army is suffering from the constant changes that take place in the staff appointments. In nearly all the important jobs, such as Director-General of the Territorial Army and divisional and brigade commanders, the holders are merely birds of passage, and the office is used very largely as a stepping stone to something better. While I have no doubt that these officers do their work very well, it often happens that when they are appointed they are completely new to the Territorial Army and have to start at the beginning. Then, when they have begun to appreciate all the difficulties, they are moved on and the same process is continued. In order to obtain greater continuity of policy, I do not suggest that the length of time for these commands should be extended, but that a system of advisory committees might well be started throughout the country, the committees to consist of Territorial officers with long years of personal experience behind them. There could be one national advisory committee to advise the Director-General with possibly an assistant director-general who would be a Territorial officer holding the rank of major-general. Then there could be a series of local advisory committees to assist commands or even smaller areas.
Such a system would help to maintain continuity of policy and, at the same time, would help to obviate many of the difficulties which arise through lack of experience and knowledge. I realise the magnitude of these problems and the difficulties which the Government and the War Office have to face, but I think that the time has come when all the conditions of service and the functions and policy of the Territorial Army should be thoroughly reviewed. For this purpose I think the best thing is for some departmental committee or royal commission to examine and report on all the matters raised in the Amendment which has been moved to-night. Such an investigation would help to crystallise and remove the difficulties, and, at the same time, would enable the Government to give what is so badly needed—a clear lead, even clearer than that which was given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary,
that the Territorial Army is essential to the country, not only for defence against aggression, but for maintaining peace and greater security in international and Imperial affairs.

7.36 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I wish to support the Amendment and to add my meed of thanks to my right hon. Friend for the concessions he has given to the Territorial Army. I think, however, that in my previous existence my name must have been Oliver Twist, because I should like to have more. I want to give one or two figures with regard to the marriage allowance and to compare what is received by a Territorial who is unemployed and by a Territorial who is in camp. A man who was unemployed and was living on what he could get from public assistance would, if he had one child, get 29s. That is the rate in Liverpool. In camp his pay and allowances would amount to 26s., a difference of 3s. If he had two children, the difference would still be 3s. If he had three children, he would get 35s. from public assistance and 31s. in pay and allowances in camp. These figures are of vital importance, but I do not know what can be done to meet the position. The reply may be that the pay of the Territorial is at the same rate as that of the Regular soldier, but a Regular soldier has his family in married quarters and does not have to pay rent. I think that every married Territorial should have the allowance no matter what his age. His position is admittedly different from that of the Regular soldier, and in view of the figures I have given I suggest that we should give the Territorial soldier some form of rent allowance—not large, but sufficient to assist him.
I should like to appeal again to employers to give every assistance to enable their Territorial employés to get off for camp. I should like to take the opportunity of pointing out to employers that the Territorial Army is saving their pockets because, were it not for this cheap form of defence, we should have to increase the Regular Army, which would mean a higher cost to the taxpayer. In this connection, I would like to put forward a small suggestion which would entail a certain amount of trouble to the War Office, but I am certain that they could carry it out for they do not
mind what trouble they take if they can improve matters. I refer to the question of allowing employers who pay excise duty on male servants a remission of the duty if they allow their servants to go to camp for the full 15 days. In a great many cases the period of annual training comes at the most inconvenient time to the employer. The duty of 15s. which he pays is a small thing, and I suggest that he should be exempt from it. This would require the consent of 60 councils in the kingdom. The Chancellor informed us in the last Budget that 20 of them have already agreed to total remission of the tax, and that the remainder were not altogether agreeable. It is a question of the War Office taking up the matter with these 60 councils. The whole thing is very small, but it is the detail and small things that matter and help to build up big things.
I want to refer to the position of the Territorial adjutant who goes from the Regular Army to instruct the Territorial Army. In the case of the Royal Artillery, volunteers for this job are very rare. In fact, I understand the majority of the adjutants have to be detailed for the job. In theory, the training and organisation of the Territorial unit is the job of the commanding officer; in practice, there is no doubt that the adjutant is the pivot upon which the whole training turns. The best commanding officers are those who are efficient business men or those who are active in public life, and they have not the time to do all that is required of them. Therefore, they have to rely on the adjutants. If the commanding officer is lethargic, the adjutant must spur him on to greater efficiency. If he is an energetic commanding officer, the adjutant must encourage his energies, or, if he is over-energetic, he must see that his energies are applied in the right direction.
These are factors which are not always realised by the Regular soldier when he takes up the job. Generally, there is profound ignorance among junior Regular officers as to what the objects, the composition or the methods of the Territorial Army are. A lot more instruction of that kind could be given to junior Regular officers. Beyond that there is a financial handicap for the Regular officer taking the job of a Territorial brigade or
battalion. His Regular confrere who is an adjutant of a Regular battalion or artillery brigade gets 5s. extra duty pay, while the Territorial officer gets only 2s. 6d. Because it is a four-year appointment, the Inland Revenue authorities—this is a matter which is causing considerable grievance—take lodging, furniture, fuel and light allowances, and impose tax upon them. The Regular officer, however, does not have to pay tax on these allowances. That is a financial handicap which should be removed at once. With regard to travelling allowances for the Territorial adjutant, it is a great convenience, and almost a necessity, that he should have his own car. In the past, and I am not happy about the position to-day, the allowance for mileage for a car has not been sufficient. I am not suggesting that the officers should make money out of their journeys, but I suggest that they should not be out of pocket for any work that they put in for the Territorial Army.
There is the social aspect to be considered. He comes from a mess and from congenial surroundings, in which facilities exist in cheap form for various sports which are an essential part of the life of a soldier. An officer who has anything to do with horses ought to keep up his capacity for riding and retain "an eye for the country," two great necessities in his profession. When he goes to an urban district as an officer in the Territorial Army he finds such facilities are almost beyond the reach of his purse, because there is not the cheapness which is offered by the organisation of a Regular mess. If he is married he misses his friends. He goes, possibly, to a strange town in the North of England, and a year goes by before he is really taken up and finds congenial friends. Further, his work is done in the evenings, and that is not an attraction from the point of view of a happily married man. Then there is the question of professional advancement. The younger Regular officer looks upon a Territorial adjutancy as a military backwater, as leading nowhere. This should not be the case. It cuts him out from any chance of going to the Staff College or going through the gunnery staff course—or makes that very nearly impossible—and both are almost a sine qua non for advancement in the Regular Army.
Any staff appointment is looked upon as better than a Territorial adjutancy. Any G.S.O. 3 is vastly more important; and to-day practically any officer who volunteers to become a Territorial adjutant can get the job. That should not be the case. The appointment ought to be made much more desirable and much more worth while. It is an important job, and I suggest there should be professional inducements—possibly special facilities for going to the Staff College, a certain number of nominations. A certain number of junior "past Staff College" should be appointed as Territorial adjutants. Opportunities for promotion should be given as an inducement, so that one can get the best type of officer. It should also be essential that any regular officer going to the higher command should at one time or another have done service in the Territorial Army, because when it comes—and we all pray the time never shall come—to having to work together in the field it is essential that the regular soldier should understand what the Territorial Army has to do. Instruction in Territorial Army matters—propaganda, as it were—should go on among the junior regular officers, so that they may have a thorough working knowledge of the Territorial Army and how it functions and has its being, and they should be inspired to assist it and to wish to become adjutants in it. All these remarks, in a mild degree, apply to warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who are attached to the Territorial Army as permanent staff instructors. They are splendid men and have given the Territorial Army generous assistance, but I consider that immediate reform of their conditions of service is absolutely essential. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for the concessions he has made to-day, and I hope that some attention will be paid to the small suggestions which have been made from this bench this afternoon.

7.49 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I wish to make a few remarks on one point only, and that is the desirability of instituting a Territorial Army Reserve for other ranks as a counterpart to the reserve of Territorial officers which already exists. The Territorial Army is, in some respects, considerably under strength. What the reason or reasons for that may be is a
matter of opinion, but I am convinced that fundamentally it really has nothing to do with the lack of money. Nevertheless, I should like to join with those who have already expressed their thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the increases of remuneration, though they do little more, as a matter of fact, than help to cover what one might call the out-of-pocket expenses of members of the Territorial Army. But whether the Territorial Army to-day is up to strength or under strength, and however much we may have been inclined to devote ourselves to considering how it may be brought up to strength we must never blind ourselves—and I do not say that any speaker so far has done so—to the important secondary role of its expansion, and considerable expansion, in time of war. A very interesting point for consideration in the next war, if, indeed, if ever occurs, will be the time factor. At what speed military operations in the next war will proceed neither I nor anyone else can say, but a day may count where hitherto a week has sufficed. In the increased pace which one may look for both in the preparations for and the conduct of the next war a Territorial Army Reserve for other ranks will be an important factor.
The objection to creating such a Reserve which is put forward is that it would inevitably cost a certain amount of money, and that with the small amount of money which is available for the Territorial Army it is important that every single penny which is spent should count. It is also argued that for that expenditure of money we should not get any real corresponding advantage, because the type of man who would be in the Territorial Army Reserve would be the type who would most naturally come back to the colours when the necessity for Territorial Army expansion arose on the outbreak of war. I do not think the objection on the ground of cost is a very serious one, because not very much money will be required. The important thing in having a Territorial Army Reserve for other ranks will be that it will give an element of status to the man who belongs to it. At present the man who retires from the Territorial Army has nothing to go to, but then there would be an organisation which
would enable the authorities to keep, so to speak, in official touch with him.
Those of us who command Territorial units have all had experience of good men, whom we would like to retain, retiring and, as it nearly always turns out, retiring for good. I have found in my own experience that there are two particular reasons for retiring. First a man becomes engaged to be married. It is not a question of whether he will get a marriage allowance, but the feeling seems to affect Territorial soldiers, as it affects other people, that when they get married the affairs of matrimony will occupy the whole of their available spare time for the rest of their lives. Then there is the type of man who wants what he calls "a proper holiday." It is not that he dislikes his Territorial training, he may look on it for a number of years as an extremely good and perhaps cheap form of holiday. That consideration applies, possibly, with even more force to the married man, who sees that as long as he remains in the Territorial Army he may not be able, unless he is fortunately placed, to get what he considers to be a proper holiday. He therefore retires, but when he has had a holiday on his own for a year or two he might quite likely wish to go back into the Territorial Army again; but it is my experience, and I expect it is that of other people, that as a rule he does not return once he has retired, because he does not wish to have to start afresh by re-enlisting.
If we had a Territorial Army Reserve for other ranks a man who had served, say, his first four years and wanted a break could, instead of leaving entirely, transfer to the Reserve, and there should be a regulation that within, say, two or three years that man should be at liberty to go back into his unit if he wished to do so. I am certain that a good many useful men would take advantage of such an opportunity. Of course, it is desirable to turn over a considerable number of men in the Territorial Army, because one does not want everybody to go on year after year until he becomes old and crusted, but, as things are, one so often loses just the sort of man that one would like to go on for another term of years and become that most valuable type, an instructor. Of all the concessions made to the Territorial Army in the present Estimates none is more important from the point of view of efficiency than the
additional financial inducement which is to be given to men to become instructors. Certainly nothing will be of more value when it comes to expanding the Territorial Army in time of war. The second advantage of a Territorial Army Reserve for other ranks is that when the forces are expanded on the outbreak of war one would be able, having those men in a definite reserve, having, as I say, official touch with them, to earmark the actual personnel whom one would want to call in to make up the strength of a unit or to fill up the cadres of those additional units which are created on the outbreak of war.
I would suggest that the Territorial Army Reserve for other ranks should be divided into two categories. Here the money question comes into consideration. First, there might be a category into which what I might call the ordinary Territorial soldier might go, the man who has done his service and whom we want to retain but who has no particularly outstanding qualities. He would be under no obligation to attend drills or anything like that, and he need not necessarily get any remuneration or, if he got any remuneration at all, it might be purely nominal. He would simply be in the Reserve as a matter of status, in order that we might have some sort of official touch with him. The second category would be for men who at a time of expansion would make either first-class instructors or at all events useful noncommissioned officers. We need to do a little more than keep in touch with such men. We want them to keep in touch with the Territorial Army and in touch with military duties in principle and in practice. There ought to be certain obligations for them—the obligation to do a certain number of drills a year. In those drills, which could be done under the regular permanent staff instructor of the Territorial Army, a man would be brushed up in the latest technique—quite generally, of course, in the limited time at his disposal—and could keep himself in practice as a commander of men or as an instructor. In return for those obligations such men ought to be paid a certain amount of money. The amount of money would not be large, and I am perfectly certain that in the end it would be extremely well spent. Those are just a few suggestions as to the desirability
and, I would suggest, the practicability of instituting a Territorial Army Reserve. I am perfectly certain that the existence of that Reserve would be a really important fact in enabling the Territorial Army to fill that wider role of expanding, and expanding considerably, in time of war.

8.1 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN: I do not wish to keep the House very long, but as one of those who have been urging on behalf of the Territorial Army that the War Office should do something more to help that Army in its present difficulties I wish just to pay my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and to those other members of the War Office, particularly the Under-Secretary of State and the Director-General of the Territorial Army, who have helped to bring this matter about. Those of us who serve in the Territorial Army welcome this new move on the part of the War Office, because it changes the direction in which things have hitherto been going. Hitherto the Territorial Army has had more and more responsibilities and obligations put upon it, and has had ever-decreasing rates of pay, or little cuts in one way or another. For the first time, in the concessions announced to-day, that direction has been reversed, and we are thankful for it. Indeed, with regard to the efficiency pay and instructors' allowances we have been met absolutely in full, and we thank my right hon. Friend for the concessions which he has made to us.
There are some of us who still think that the War Office might have allowed the marriage allowance to the gunner or the infantry soldier—the man who is not a non-commissioned officer. That man, for instance, if he be a gunner, goes to camp and only gets 14s. a week, and nothing at all for his wife or children. Unlike the regular soldier he very likely has to keep up an establishment at home. As one of my hon. Friends has already said if 24s. is the allowance made under the unemployment assistance regulations—which have been temporarily abandoned—then 14s. is very little for the man who is doing good work for his country at that time.
I would like also to ask my right hon. Friend a question with regard to these travelling allowances of 1s. a drill. He
said this would only be available for the specified number of drills every year. I should like him to tell us, if he can, for how many journeys it would be available. What we want, especially those of us who serve in highly technical units, is to get our men to drill as many times as we can in the year. In the unit I have the honour to command, we are responsible for the coast defences of one of our fortress towns, and, if the unit is not efficient, we might just as well not have that responsibility put upon us. We have had great difficulties, in the present state of affairs, in getting our men up for a sufficient number of drills.
I think the concessions that have been made to-day will do a great deal to encourage those already serving in the Territorial Army to re-engage. But I think we had better be quite frank about it—they will be too little to get us additional recruits. I think we must have something rather more, perhaps in the shape of something like the old bounty restored to all ranks. After all, the old bounty, which we had after the War, was one of £5. It then dropped to £3 10s. and was later reduced to £2 10s. and then to 30s. When you get a man coming just for his ordinary rate of pay and having to do at least 20 drills—and we want him to have more—in the year, certainly the present 30s. bounty is not enough.
I do once again urge on the War Office that the bounty should be paid in a rather different way. It should be paid per drill, and we should not have to say that a man—as perhaps we sometimes have to say—has put in more drills than he has because otherwise he cannot draw either pay or bounty during camp. The position at the present moment, which perhaps all hon. Members do not realise, is that if a man has not put in 20 drills, and wishes to come to camp, he cannot draw either the bounty or pay during camp. That is the time when we want him. We ought to be allowed to pay this camp pay whether he has performed the full number of drills or not—that is to say if the commanding officer wishes him to come to camp.
I want to deal with the question of the sub-letting of drill halls. In the old days we used to be allowed to sub-let our drill halls and take the profits for regimental funds Now, when we sub-let a drill hall, the War Office take part of the sub-let
and the association takes the other half. It is true that the association is supposed to give it back to the units from which it comes, but it only gives it back in just the same grant which it would have got, with sub-letting money or without. The result is that the sub-letting of drill halls is falling off, because officers and noncommissioned officers are not going to be put in the position of being tax-gatherers for the State. We do enough voluntary work for the Territorial Army, and we do not see why we should be collecting funds for the War Office or for our association. That is what the present system really amounts to. I do not think it is worth while keeping on this new scheme, invented by some financial genius of the War Office to take the only source of funds of the unit.
I do not know whether hon. Members realise what is the position of the commanding officer of a Territorial unit to-day. If the War Office will consult their Territorial divisional commanders they will find that this probably means about £50 out of the pocket of every Territorial commanding officer who is keeping his unit running efficiently to-day. That kind of thing ought to cease. You ought to have men commanding Territorial units whether blessed or not with the necessary income of their own to pay something towards keeping those units going. The only funds you can reckon on are the small amounts you get by subletting drill halls. I do hope that this matter will be taken up urgently by the War Office so that Territorial units have not still to be supported to a certain extent out of the pockets of their commanding officers.
I would, in conclusion, thank my right hon. Friend for what we have already received. I am quite certain that we all in this House want a really strongly recruited Territorial Army, because the Territorial Army is not an aggressive force; it is very largely concerned in our coast defence and anti-aircraft defence, and in performing duties which would only be used if we were ever asked to defend our country, or if we had to come forward, as we have promised to do, in the collective system which hon. Members opposite talk so much about although they do not visualise what eventually it may mean. I am not one of those who believe that this country ought to enter into these commitments unless we are
strong enough not to be likely to be called upon to enforce them. I am one of those who believe that the country would not support that. I am one of those who believe that it is an honourable thing to be prepared to defend your country in the hour of need, and I think that the War Office should more and more recognise it by doing more and more for those who are willing to give up their leisure for this purpose.

Orders of the Day — GERMANY (REPLY TO BRITISH NOTE).

8.11 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I would ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the Debate for the purpose of making a very short statement relating, I hope you will think, to the general subject matter of these Estimates, and to inform the House of the answer which the German Government have given to the Note which, as the House knows, was delivered to them this afternoon.

Mr. SPEAKER: The House must be well aware that the rule which governs Motions for the adjournment of the debate is that any debate which takes place on that Motion must be strictly germain to the Motion itself. At the same time, I am sure that the House would not wish to be impotent on an occasion of this kind, but I hope that the House will realise that this is in the nature of stretching a point. Though it is quite impossible to lay down a rule, we must not create a precedent. It is as well to have it on record that we do not wish if we can help it to create a precedent in this way.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I thank you, Sir, for permitting me formally to move the adjournment of this Debate. It is, I think, well understood by Members in all parts of the House, and it will be evident from the nature of the statement, that there can be no debate on this Motion. It will be within the recollection of the House that at Question Time, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I informed the House that His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin had been instructed to deliver a Note to the German Government. At that time
it was not possible to inform the House of the contents of that Note, but it was made available in the Vote Office as soon as I had received information that Sir Eric Phipps had in fact discharged his task. Later in the afternoon, therefore, hon. Members provided themselves with the White Paper containing the terms of the Note. The last paragraph of that Note put a question to the German Government, and perhaps I may be allowed to read part of the sentence:
His Majesty's Government feel bound to call the attention of the German Government to the above considerations "(in the Note)" and they wish to be assured that the German Government still desire the visit to take place with the scope and for the purposes previously agreed.
I have now received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin, the effect of which I wish to convey to the House. He informs me that, having delivered the Note, the Note was considered by Baron Von Neurath, the German Foreign Minister, and that, as a result, he was informed that the German Government would still wish this visit to take place, and they agree that the conversations would take place within the scope and for the purposes previously agreed. The House will see that the condition we thought we should lay down is accepted by the German Government. I would only add that the German Government, as I understand, made an announcement of the terms of this reply in Berlin, and it is therefore now very widely known. I am obliged to you, Sir, for permitting me to make this statement.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will do my best to obey your ruling and not attempt to debate the statement of my right hon. Friend. I wish, first, to say that we propose to ask for time, before the right hon. Gentleman leaves for Berlin, to discuss both the White Paper which was issued and all the events which have led up to it. We shall not ask that that shall be debated in any restricted manner but in the widest manner possible by the House. With your permission, I would like to say that if the Patronage Secretary is agreeable, we would like to discuss the time when that may be done. I would also like to make it clear why we were so insistent that the statement be made. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said we gathered from conversations in the Lobby the full content of
what is to appear in the London Press to-morrow morning in reference to the communication which the right hon. Gentleman made to the Press to-night. We felt that neither the Press nor the British Broadcasting Corporation should be allowed to make a statement on public policy before it had been made to this House. I wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman in very heartily thanking you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Members of the House of Commons, for having broken tradition so far as to allow this statement to be made to-night.

8.18 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I also wish to join in that expression and to say, only in a sentence, that I believe that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs will be received with general satisfaction.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1935.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

8.19 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: This may be the appropriate occasion to reply to the Amendment which was moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for York (Captain Lumley). I must, first of all, thank him for the most helpful and frank speech which he addressed to the House. Obviously, he has very great knowledge of the subject on which he spoke. I would also thank him for his appreciation of what has been done in these Estimates in connection with the Territorial Army and in connection with the concessions for which I know he would have pressed had we not anticipated some of his desires. I would also reply to some of the detailed statements which have been made by hon. Members who have spoken on the Amendment.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for York spoke about the shortage of recruits. We agree that the shortage is very unsatisfactory. The present rate of recruiting is certainly very much lower than we could hope for, but, now that
we have made these concessions and they have been announced, it is hoped that recruiting will once more improve. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend is a little disappointed with some of the concessions; naturally, he hoped that we might do more. Among other expressions of hope he said that he would like us to abolish the age limit for married or separation allowance for all ranks, instead of the smaller concessions which I announced in my speech. The cost, if we had made this concession to all ranks, would have been about £20,000 a year. I suggest that we might try out the present concession for a year so as to see the effect, and that if it be necessary further concessions might be made next year. I must not give too much hope to my hon. and gallant Friend for undoubtedly there are repercussions, as he indicated, and they are important ones. I need not enter into them in detail at this time.
I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend whether the War Office had arranged with the Unemployment Assistance Board to have the various small allowances which the Territorial soldier gets ignored in the determination of his need, if a soldier happened to be unemployed. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friends do not know that the bounty is already exempt. It has been exempted since last December. My hon. and gallant Friend hopes that other allowances may in future be exempted, but I have no information to give to the House now, except to say that we will use any influence we have with the Unemployment Assistance Board, because we realise that making this form of concession would result in a larger number of recruits coming forward to join the Army. My hon. and gallant Friend naturally asks for more than we have given him to-day. I would ask the House to appreciate that this year the Territorial Army are getting an increased provision of no less than £499,000, which is a very considerable sum of money and a very great advance over what we have been able to do for some years past.
The hon. and gallant Member for Keighley (Major Watt) drew attention to the fact that the Supplementary Reserve were getting a greater advantage than the Territorials. That is true, but on the other hand their obligations are of a different character, including the
fact that a member of the Supplementary Reserve may be sent abroad without an Act of Parliament. He also drew attention to the fact that soldiers in the Supplementary Reserve and in the Territorials were drilling in the same drill hall, and it was a little difficult when one man was getting a bigger bounty than the other. I am afraid, however, that we have no facilities in the way of drill halls for allowing the Supplementary Reserve men to train in different halls from those which are occupied by the Territorial Army.
With reference to the Territorial Army Advisory Committee, which was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Keighley, quite frankly I like the idea. I have always liked the idea of any of these advisory committees. I remember that, when I was at the Department of Overseas Trade, we had a Trade Advisory Committee there, and it was most helpful. I say here and now that that suggestion will not be lost sight of. In fact, it has already been considered, and I hope it will be found possible to have some such advisory committee appointed, which will meet at regular intervals in addition to being called together as occasion might arise. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) made a comparison between the emoluments of the Territorial Army soldier receiving unemployment benefit and at camp—

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Public assistance.

Mr. HACKING: I am not sure that I have the figures here in connection with public assistance, but I have been challenged with a statement that a Territorial soldier who is receiving unemployment benefit would in fact be better off with his unemployment benefit than he would be in camp. I have taken out one particular case, that of a Territorial private with a wife and three children. He would draw while in camp, as pay, 14s. per week, and he would receive marriage allowance in the form of help for his wife and three children, making up a total of £1 11s. a week. In addition to that, the soldier would be fed and accommodated. The Territorial Army soldier receives, in respect of attendance at camp and the prescribed number of drills, a proficiency grant of £1, and for proficiency
in weapon training a further 10s. That is in addition to his pay and his marriage allowance. On the other hand, if that man were unemployed and drawing benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, his benefit would be 17s., his wife would have 9s., and his three children 6s., or a total of £1 12s., which I admit is 1s. more in hard cash than he would be getting if he wore in camp as a private without any special qualifications to entitle him to proficiency grant or the proficiency in weapon training grant. On the other hand, we must take into account the fact that out of this sum of £l 12s., which is 1s. more in hard cash than he would be getting when in camp, the man has to feed and accommodate himself as well as accommodating and feeding his family; so that on balance undoubtedly the man who is in camp would be better off than the man in receipt of unemployment benefit.

Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN: Surely my right hon. Friend is taking into consideration all the money that he gets for all the drills he performs in the year, and is attributing it to the week in camp?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: May I point out also, that the Territorial soldier has to pay house rent, which the Regular soldier does not have to pay?

Mr. HACKING: I realise all those factors, but I think that on further consideration it will be found that the man attending camp is not really worse off than the man in receipt of unemployment benefit. If my hon. and gallant Friends are not satisfied, I will look into the matter again, but these are the facts with which I have been provided on this point. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Birkenhead also expressed regret that the additional pay of an adjutant in the Territorial Army was less than in the Regular Army. I should have thought, myself, that the responsibility and work of the Territorial Army, in connection with a unit which only comes into being as an entire unit for a fortnight a year are not comparable with the responsibility and work in connection with a unit which exists all the year round; but, apart from that, I must tell the House that the cost of raising the Territorial Army adjutant's additional pay to 5s., as against the 2s. 6d. at present received, would be something
like £16,000 a year, and at this moment I regret that for financial reasons we could not consider granting that sum of money. My hon. and gallant Friend also referred to the financial handicap as regards assessment for Income Tax. I had not heard of that trouble before, but I will certainly look into the question and write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I can.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead) made a very interesting speech. I was particularly interested in his suggestion as to reserves for the Territorial Army—that the Territorial Army should have reserves, so that, when a man had served his four years, if he did not feel inclined to go on as a full-time Territorial soldier, he should have the opportunity of going into this reserve, where he could just come into the drill hall occasionally, could be kept in touch with his old friends, and would not be so likely to drift away from them altogether—in other words, that he might possibly be induced to come back to them at a later date after his semi-retirement had ceased. I do not know exactly what inducement would have to be offered to the men in the Territorial Army Reserve, but it would have to be something, because otherwise you would not get a large number of men to enter such a reserve. Here again financial considerations are involved, which we shall certainly have to take into account before agreeing that it is a good thing to have such a reserve as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin) asked me for some details in connection with the travelling allowances for drills. I understand that in these travelling allowances all compulsory drills will be included, and half the voluntary drills. My hon. and gallant Friend also spoke of the letting of drill-halls, and indicated that, unless it was made definitely worth while for an officer in charge of a drill-hall, by getting some of the fees for the hall directly for his unit, he would not be so likely to take an interest in the letting of the hall. We have already looked into that matter. I cannot give the House the decision to-day, but personally I have a good deal of sympathy with the idea. I believe, myself, that, if anybody is
going to derive a direct benefit by the letting of these halls, then in all probability the halls will be let more frequently, and in the end probably the Treasury, the territorial associations and the War Office would gain. Here again I cannot give any definite reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's demand, but can only say that the matter is being looked into, that it has been under consideration for some time, and that, if we can definitely prove that the War Office would not lose, and the Territorial Association would not lose, I think there is a very good chance of his demand being met. He asked other questions to which perhaps he will allow me to reply by letter. I have replied to a large number of questions which have been put to me, and I hope to reply to any that I have missed out as soon as I get to the office to-morrow. I can assure hon. Members that every line of their speeches will be read, and, finally, may I beg that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division, if only in the recollection that we have done much this year, I might say in advance, to meet his Amendment, and in view of the fact that he and his hon. Friends have congratulated the War Office upon the concessions which they have made. They are really thanking us in anticipation of what they know we are going to do in future years, but on this occasion I ask them to be contented with what we have done, and to give all our suggestions a trial run of perhaps 12 months, and then, if at that time it is discovered that something else should be done in order to help recruiting, which is the main reason why we made this concession, we will not hesitate to make further recommendations to the House.

Captain LUMLEY: In view of the sympathetic reply which my right hon. Friend has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. NORTH: I do not think that it would be possible to find a more appropriate occasion for a discussion of the Army Estimates than the present time when, unfortunately, so many countries throughout the world appear to be engaged
on building up vast armies. Tonight we are being asked to approve of an expenditure of £43,000,000 upon our Army, Before hon. Members do so they all naturally wish to be convinced, first of all, that the money is being spent to the greatest advantage of the taxpayer, and, secondly, that the allocation of the money between the various branches of the Service is likely to result in producing the most efficient army possible. After the very interesting Debate which has already covered a great many points which hon. Members wished to raise, I have no particular criticism to make about the Estimates as a whole. I realise that hon. Members sitting on those benches would like to see the Estimates lower than they are, and I admit that £43,000,000 is a great deal of money, but that is the price, or some of the price, which we have to pay for the safeguarding of our liberties. If one views it as I personally view it in that respect, then whatever hon. Members over there may say, it is cheap at the price.
When I come to the question of the allocation of the money upon the various branches of the Service, I confess that I am not nearly so easy in my mind. At the present moment I do not think that there is any Member in this House who would wish to deliver a speech which might be described as bellicose, and I certainly have no desire to enlarge upon the possibilities of some future war. At the same time, after the remarks of the Financial Secretary about the duties of our Regular Army—and he told us that one of the principal duties of the Regular Army was that of police work—it is just as well to remember that we keep a Regular Army also for the very good reason that if a future war should arise we want something with which to protect ourselves. Therefore, not only is the Army there for peace time purposes but also in order to give a sense of security should we be unfortunate enough to find ourselves involved in a future war.
The unfortunate part about the present position of the Regular Army is that it is numerically so small that, in the event of such a war, it would be really quite incapable of dealing with the situation alone and unaided. It is not the fault of the Army at all. It is merely that it so happens that in this country for a considerable number of years past we have always maintained
a very small standing army, and when trouble has arisen we have always had to fall back upon irregular troops to assist the Regular Army to bring whatever the war might be to a satisfactory conclusion. Therefore, the irregular army is just as important—in fact, perhaps even more important in some respects—as the Regular Army. It was the Financial Secretary who said that the safety of the realm rested upon the Territorial Army. If that be so, then obviously any irregular army we have in this country is a vital consideration. The point I want to make is that when we come to study the Army Estimates we would naturally expect that out of the £43,000,000 we are being asked to approve this evening some comparatively large sum would be allocated to the irregular forces. If hon. Members will look at page 56, Vote 2, they will see that of the £43,000,000, the money to be spent on our irregular army is just under £5,000,000. Does the Financial Secretary really think that it is possible to create an efficient irregular force on the sum of £5,000,000? If he does not, may I ask if it is not possible for the Army Council in future to try and arrange that a larger sum should be spent upon the irregular army, even if it is at the cost of the Regular Army. I do not propose that the Estimate should be increased, but it is a very important matter.
There are one or two important points I want to raise in connection with Vote 2, the Territorial Army Estimates. I believe that the time is rapidly approaching when the whole system and organisation of our irregular forces in this country will have to be revised. At the moment, in view of the position in which the world appears to be, one cannot say that the irregular Army as it exists to-day is entirely satisfactory. Most probably there is room for improvement. What irregular forces have we? We have the Army Reserve and the Supplementary Reserve. Then there is the main plank in the platform, the Territorial Army. Those are the three forces which together make up our irregular army. Of the three, I think that the cheapest, taking into consideration what we get, is the Territorial Army. I think I might say with confidence that the Territorial Army is the cheapest form of irregular force ever introduced by any country. It is not only the cheapest but actually for the money we expend upon it we get a
greater result than in the case of the Army Reserve and the Supplementary Reserve. That being so, then, whatever the future policy of the Government may be, if they wish to increase the irregular army they might well consider spending more on the Territorial Army and less on the Army Reserve and the Supplementary Reserve.
I am well aware that there are very strong arguments in favour of the Army Reserve. You can call it up at a moment's notice, you can send the men off to any place you like and can draft them into different units. There are, however, certain arguments against the Army Reserve, and probably the chief argument is that on the Army Reserve we are spending money on men who are already trained, whereas it might be better to spend money on training men who are untrained, because from the point of view of the nation, if you have to mobilise and go to war the more people you have in the country who have even some slight knowledge of military training the easier it is to raise and train the army. Another point against the Army Reserve is that it is clearly obvious that the man who has had five or seven years' training is not going to be made a much better soldier by putting him into the Reserve and giving him training for a fortnight or a month in the year. When he has finished his regular training he is as good a soldier as you are ever likely to turn him into.
Whatever arguments may be advanced in favour of the Army Reserve it seems to me that there is far less argument which can be advanced in favour of the Supplementary Reserve. The Supplementary Reserve consists of all kinds of technicians and experts. It may be necessary to have people of that description, but the fact remains that some of them are being paid for doing nothing. They are being paid solely in order that we may be able to call them up on mobilisation. However necessary it may be to have these people, the Supplementary Reserve is a very costly and wasteful way of doing it. Moreover, if we ever found ourselves involved in another war on anything like the scale of the last War it is obvious that we should have to introduce some form of conscription, and the moment we did that we
could get these highly technical people for nothing. We could conscript them. Therefore, it does not seem to be much good paying them in peace time when we could conscript them in war time.
With regard to the officers of the Supplementary Reserve, they are attached to regular regiments and have to do a certain amount of training. There, again, I think it is a very expensive and wasteful way of doing it, and it causes very considerable friction with the Territorial Force. Compare the difference between an officer in the Supplementary Reserve and an officer in the Territorial Army. The officer of the Supplementary Reserve puts in three weeks' training a year at any time of the year that he likes. During that training he receives his full pay and allowances and also a bounty of £25 a year, minus the cut. When he has finished his training he has no social obligations whatever. He has no social obligations towards his regiment. Take the position of the Territorial officer. He has to go to camp for a fortnight in the year and he cannot choose his time. The time is chosen for him. During that fortnight he gets his pay and allowances, but no bounty. When he has been to camp he has by no means finished. He knows that much depends upon the social activities of the officers of the regiment. Whether one can get recruits or whether one's regiment is successful largely depend on their activities. That is one of the social obligations placed upon him, for which he receives no remuneration whatever. Naturally, there is a certain feeling between these two branches of the Service. It seems to me that in the case of the Supplementary Reserve, although it may be necessary to have people who can be drafted into the Regular Army at any moment, this is a very expensive way of doing it.
There are one or two points which I desire to raise in connection with the Territorial Army. When one raises a matter in connection with the Territorial Army one is generally met with the same answer. The reply is: "There may be a good deal in what you say, but, unfortunately, it will cost more money." And that is an end of it. I would ask my right hon. Friend to note the fact that on this occasion I have been to particular trouble and have discovered three points which will not, I think, involve expenditure.
Therefore, I put them forward in a hopeful spirit. The first point is in regard to the question of camps. It has always seemed to me a great waste of money to send out an individual territorial unit to a camp by itself. It would be far better for the unit and it would be cheaper if we never had any kind of camp under the strength of a brigade, and whenever possible of a division. The argument against that is that we cannot get units to go to camp at the same time. One unit has to take into consideration agricultural workers and another unit has to consider town workers, and so forth. I believe that if we were to take one unit from the south, one from the north, one from the east and one from the west it would be possible to arrange to hold a brigade camp together. That is if units are prepared to go outside their areas. When it is said, "Why not go to Blackpool," or somewhere else, they say, "Oh, that is outside our area." It seems to me that it is quite wrong. You not only want to train the unit itself, but you want to get it to know something about other branches of the Service, and you will do that far better if other branches of the Service are in the same camp. When you send a unit to camp by itself it generally means they spend their time fighting inter-company battles. A private of one company will suddenly appear waving a flag, and on being asked "Who are you?", the reply generally is, "I am a battalion of the enemy." If you are wise you tell him at once that he is captured, and if he is wise he does not argue the point. But all this is absolutely farcical. It would be much better to have greater numbers in camps.
I also desire to say a word about employers and camps. There are many employers who make no difficulty whatever about their men going to camp, but, on the other hand, there are some who make every difficulty. There are actually some employers who are not keen on employing a man who is in the Territorial force. I hope the Financial Secretary will do everything he can to persuade employers not to put obstacles in the way of any man in the Territorial Army who wishes to go to camp. In my opinion, it is a very unpatriotic action. Incidentally, I would hope that they would not only allow them to go to camp but pay their wages as well. There is also a point in connection with the period of command,
the length of time during which an officer should command a battalion or regiment. It is a great mistake to allow continuous extensions. Four years is long enough for any man to command a battalion. I know instances of men who have commanded a battalion for eight years. If you get two such occurrences running you would find a man with 15 years' service still a junior subaltern. It is much better for a unit to have continuous promotion than no promotions for a number of years and then for everyone suddenly to jump up. I know that the question of promotion is a very difficult one, but where you get people staying on a long time it is not to the good of the unit, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will try his best to regulate this position. In conclusion I would like to congratulate the Financial Secretary on the way he has introduced the estimates and also on the concessions he has been good enough to grant to the Territorial Army. Everyone who has had any connection with the Territorial Army will realise how very important the concessions are.

9.0 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. North) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail, but there is one matter, about which evidently he is keen, upon which I might say one word. In dealing with the question of the training of units he might find it an advantage to adopt the three years' system which we have found to be most beneficial in my part of the country. That is to say, for the first year you give them training as a unit in some part of the county; next year you give them training with other units in a larger camp, say at Aldershot, Tidworth or some other place, and for the third year you take them to some seaside or other delectable place, to which you may ask the men where they would like to go, possibly with another unit, for a holiday camp. We have found that system to work very satisfactorily, and I think it is much better than giving them constant training with other units where the men are apt to get sick of continually-being serious soldiers.

Mr. NORTH: The point I was trying to make was that if you take them to camp as a single unit it is a great mistake. I agree that it is a good plan to give them training as a unit one year,
the next year with other units, and in the third year training at the seaside, provided you give them an opportunity of training with other units.

Lord APSLEY: The question of going outside their area is an administrative matter; but almost every county has some pleasant spot where the men would like to go for a holiday camp. There are one or two questions I should like to raise with regard to the Regular Army. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) raised a pertinent point when he said that Lord Hailsham two years ago claimed that we were spending a great deal less on the British Army and yet retaining its efficiency, and that now we are asking for more money and saying that the Army is not so efficient as it was. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) also referred to the depreciation of stores and stocks, which is one of the prime reasons why the Government at the present moment are asking for more money, Stores have depreciated and have to be replaced; but as far as efficiency is concerned that is a more difficult question. While the British Army is efficient as far as its officers and non-commissioned officers at home are concerned, and as far as its equipment and training at home are concerned, and while its officers, noncommissioned officers and men are well trained abroad, I am not so sure that with regard to the latter the same thing can be said when they are at home.
The reason why it may not be possible to mobilise three divisions as an efficient expeditionary force is because the Army at home is occupied in training recruits. It is difficult to do that with the establishment of the Regular Army as it is at the present time. Its establishment is so low that training is rendered exceedingly difficult. The Financial Secretary said that although there was an increase in the cost of the Army it had been done without raising the establishment of the Army. I am not sure, as far as efficiency is concerned, that I would not rather have seen the establishment of units raised. I think you would get more efficiency. At the present moment units are training recruits the whole time, and the establishment is so small that you cannot get efficient units out on service for manoeuvres. It renders manoeuvres
almost a farce. Particularly is that the case in those units which should have most training—cavalry and armoured cars. Reconnaissance is most important and a most difficult job to perform. It has been said that it takes three years to make a cavalry soldier. That might be an exaggeration. Nowadays a great deal of the long distance reconnaissance, which used to be done by contact squadrons, is performed by armoured car units and the Air Force. Therefore it is not necessary to have the contact squadrons several miles away, living on the country and detached from the rest of the Army.
This work used to be done by veteran regiments with men possessing at least three or four years' service, and possibly 18 months' to two years' active service. The inaccuracy of the report of one patrol might spoil the whole of an operation. It is one of the most responsible and important jobs that a soldier has to do. Yet training has all to be done by the regiments themselves. They spend a year in training recruits, and by the end of the year they have more or less a semblance of trained men. As soon as these men are trained they go to fill up units overseas, and the regiment starts again at the bottom with more recruits. It is excellent practice for the officers and noncommissioned officers—nothing could be better—but as far as the maintaining an efficient expeditionary force is concerned, with that most important arm, the cavalry and armoured cars, it cannot be pretended that we have in this country the units that can be used straightaway for that purpose. It would take at least three months more to train them for effective use.
In regard to that question, I would ask what exactly is happening to the Third Hussars. I gather that they are to be mechanised. But in what form? Are they to be motorised scouts, like two squadrons of Lovat scouts that were engaged in Palestine during the War, or are they to be mechanised rifles? If the latter, would it not have been better to have given mechanical transport to some of our light infantry, or Highland regiments, than to a cavalry regiment with its very small establishment? The cavalry establishment on manoeuvres is almost absurd. You are lucky if you get 150 men out on parade for any tactical scheme. I would like to make one or two suggestions which might possibly assist.
One is that for these reconnaissance units, cavalry and armoured cars, the term of service should be raised by at least two years. The other suggestion, and this applies to all arms, is that in view of the fact that there is a large wastage because of the amount of work done by orderlies and men about barracks or camps, would it not be possible to get some volunteer civilian corps, possibly from the Boy Scouts or other voluntary units, or, may be, volunteers from some of the labour camps, who would assist in doing the domestic duties round camp or barracks? You would then get every man out to do his training as a soldier.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: What does the Noble Lord mean by men from labour camps?

Lord APSLEY: That subject would probably come under another Vote at another time, but I gather that there are to be training camps set up in order to keep men fit for other forms of civilian work, and it is just possible that you could get some of them to volunteer. They do not want to join the Territorial Army at present, but they might volunteer for a fortnight under canvas to assist the Army, and having once seen what the Army is they might like to join it afterwards.

Mr. BEVAN: Does the Noble Lord seriously suggest that labour camps set up under another Department, are to be associated with military training?

Lord APSLEY: I quite understand that the hon. Member would be horrified at any such idea. I was only suggesting that volunteers could be asked for from any clubs or camps or training centres where you have men congregated together and living on the charity of the taxpayer, learning to keep themselves fit for other forms of civilian life. They might like a very enjoyable holiday under canvas while assisting the Army. I would keep the whole thing voluntary, of course? I hope the hon. Member understands that. The hon. Member himself, I am sure, would thoroughly enjoy the experience too. With regard to the Third Hussars, I would ask what it is intended to do with these units, and whether, if they are to be mechanised, it would not be better to convert them into an armoured car regiment completely? The importance
of armoured car regiments is now fully recognised by the High Command. There are now only two of them. Would it not be better if there were three, one at home, one in Egypt and one in India, so that they could run reliefs, instead of, as now, having four years at home and eight years in Egypt? Further, in India they would be on the squadron system, with squadrons detached in different parts of the country, which is a form of training they should develop, because it is what they would frequently have to do in war.
Another matter to which I would refer is the cost of the tanks. Hon. Members will see from the Estimates that a tank battalion is by a long way the most expensive unit that we have on charge under this Vote. It is more expensive than an infantry battalion, though it has a smaller establishment, for reasons that are obvious. There are other expenses which are not found in this Vote at all, new expenditure on necessary accommodation that must be found, new permanent buildings, garages for the vehicles, and so forth, which do not come into this Vote. There are also the very high costs of the mechanical workshops, both permanent and mobile, for doing running repairs. The maintenance of the vehicles themselves is a great cost, and the petrol and oil is another very heavy item.
Apart from that there is a still greater expense which does not come into any Vote and which it is almost impossible to calculate, namely, the depreciation of the tank itself. When considering the expense of mechanical fighting units it is difficult to write of depreciation for the simple reason that if your adversary, whoever he may be, produces a vehicle which has a higher speed, longer range, greater protection and more effective fire power; then the whole of your tanks become obsolete, and you have to get a new lot. You can use the existing tanks for the training of auxiliary or reserve units, but it is almost impossible to account for the sums due to depreciation and obsolescence. I suggest that in view of the heavy cost which we have incurred in connection with these mechanical units serious attention should be given to this question. The utility of tanks is now becoming doubtful as a result of the experience of the Japanese in China, of the
Russians in the Ukraine, of the French in Syria, and of other countries in other parts of Europe and Asia.
There is now considerable doubt as to whether the tank is still the useful tactical weapon which it proved to be for a short time during the War. The late Financial Secretary gave it as his opinion that arms of precision were now definitely gaining over the amount of protection which could be afforded by mechanical vehicles. In view of these possibilities, and of the fact that the Germans and the Japanese take no interest in tanks at all—the Japanese having tried them and found that they were no use against modern weapons owing to the increased velocity and precision of modern artillery—perhaps we ought not to undergo too much expense in this respect. I suggest that one tank brigade would be sufficient to keep at full fighting strength. At present the tank battalions are the only units that are up to strength compared to other units' very reduced esablishment. The tank units are right up to war strength, but I suggest that one brigade, which might be regarded as an experimental brigade, would be sufficient and that the other tank battalions should be disbanded, and a number of the surplus tanks used for replacing broken down or worn out tanks in the service battalions and the rest distributed to those territorial units which are, I understand, to be converted into light tank or heavy tank companies. It is not much use having territorial tank units, if you do not give them the tanks with which to train.
Further, I question whether it is necessary to have eight light tank battalions in India. I should have thought that India was not a very favourable arena for tank work. The climate is hot and tanks cannot be employed on long distance work, I understand that they were formed to replace the former armoured car units. I suggest it is possible that the Indian High Command is a little behindhand in this matter as they have very often been in the past in regard to other modern developments compared with the High Command at home. I know that Sir Philip Chetwode left England before the armoured car had been tried out and its importance discovered in this country. When he himself commanded the Desert Column on active service in Palestine he had armoured cars
but he had not the vaguest idea of how they were to be used, and they were practically not used at all. The idea apparently had not entered into his mind of what armoured cars were for, and it is conceivable that he, after his experience in Palestine, and not having heard of the various uses to which armoured cars could be put, notably for reconnaissance purposes, thought they would be no use in India. But I should have thought that a few armoured car units, say three squadrons, would have been invaluable in India. Supposing that a political officer were murdered in some out-of-the-way village and it was necessary to get there quickly, a couple of armoured cars would probably do the whole job. Or, a disturbance might occur in some "ungetatable" place where it was only necessary to show the flag in order to stop it. There again, two armoured cars would probably do the job whereas if you had to send a light tank battalion grinding its way along it is exceedingly doubtful whether it would get there in time to be of any use. Indeed, in connection with civil trouble of any kind, I think it exceedingly doubtful whether tanks are of any use at all for police purposes.
Another question is that mentioned in Vote A, namely, the replacement of the Lewis gun by a light machine gun. I wish to know whether this light machine gun is actually a machine gun or an automatic rifle. The two things are very different. The machine gun is really a form of artillery. In the war it was found advisable to brigade the machine guns and use them as artillery, moving them to tactical points according to the needs of the situation under the command of the brigadier. The automatic rifle on the other hand was a form of armament used by the rifleman himself and there was this difference. It was not advisable to use automatic fire but only repetition. The moment you started automatic fire your ammunition supply was wasted with little effect, but firing repetition with the automatic rifle produced an effect which was at least 30 times that of the ordinary rifle. I would like to know whether this light machine gun is to be a machine gun or IS it to be the automatic rifle which will I believe inevitably replace the ordinary rifle in the firing line and avoid many casualties.
There is a further question which is not mentioned in the Vote at all and that
is regarding the use of autogyros and light aircraft on manoeuvres. The autogyro could be used successfully to convey generals and umpires and inspecting officers from place to place, and I think it has been discovered that it is a most useful vehicle. A great many of us thought so for many years. We thought that the autogyro was obviously the artillery observation machine—far better than the balloon kite or the kite which can only be used in certain kinds of weather. The autogyro can do all the artillery observation and reconnaissance and, if attacked by fighting planes, it can sit down on the ground and wait until the fighters have gone away. It is the ideal machine, and I suggest that it might be possible for the artillery arm to acquire a certain number of autogyro machines for experiment in this direction. Has any effort been made in this direction or has any objection been offered by the Air Ministry? I shall not go into that subject, however, because it is one which will be debated to-morrow and in that Debate I hope to take part. But I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell me whether they have acquired any autogyros, and if so, whether the Air Ministry have said "No, that is an aeroplane and belongs to us." That is a most important question, I would go further still and suggest that light aircraft could be very efficiently used for the conveyance of officers and umpires from place to place, and that Army headquarters should have a certain number allotted to them. That would not be interfering in any way with the Air Ministry. The aeroplanes would be used as ordinary conveyances just like motor cars.
Then there is the question of six-wheeler lorries. We have heard an interesting statement on that subject. I must confess that I am a little alarmed in regard to this matter and I hope that some investigation will be made into this subject with the Treasury and possibly with the county authorities. I remember when the subsidy on the six-wheeler lorries was introduced. It was opposed for some time, but in practice it was found to have a valuable effect. As soon as a commercial firm began to develop six-wheeler lorries on a large scale, thanks to the subsidy, there was an effect in one important respect namely as regards corrugation of the roads. The corrugation
of the roads had been getting very bad, and it was due almost entirely to heavy lorries plying constantly over the same stretches of road. It was found of course to be much worse in the case of unmetalled roads, but experiments on metalled roads show that according to the volume of traffic you get corrugation if you have four-wheeler vehicles plying constantly over the same stretches of road. As soon as the six-wheeler lorries were introduced that corrugation ceased and I think it was a most valuable asset to the county councils and other rating authorities, and incidentally to the Ministry of Transport. I would suggest that before deciding to abandon the six-wheeler lorry, some experiments might be made running heavy six-wheeler and four-wheeler lorries over different stretches of road to see whether there is corrugation on the one hand and not corrugation on the other. If these experiments prove that the six-wheeler lorry have a very beneficial effect on the road, I suggest that my right hon. Friend should take that up with the Ministry of Transport, and that the subsidy should be brought back again if only for the benefit of the roads.
I would like to ask two questions on Vote 2. One is concerned with the very high cost of the Territorial anti-aircraft service battalion in relation to the rest of the Territorial units. Anti-aircraft searchlight battalion is put at £18,400. I am a little alarmed to find that it is the most expensive unit that is going to be developed, and I confess also that I have some doubt about this question of anti-aircraft defence. I have seen during the War anti-aircraft guns firing somewhat inaccurately, and I think it is most important that this should be gone into. I wonder whether anti-aircraft services should not be run entirely by the Air Ministry? There should be correlation between aircraft and anti-aircraft services. You cannot get your target practice unless you arrange with the nearest air force unit for a flight of aeroplanes to trail targets to shoot at. It is very difficult for ordinary army work to get even one machine to do anything at all. I would like to see this matter gone into to ascertain whether the anti-aircraft services could not be run by the Air Force, both searchlight and guns, and not be put on the Territorial Army, which, with the best will in the world, cannot act
efficiently in a very important part of this country's defences. This is a matter which, perhaps, the Committee of Imperial Defence or some other authority should take up with the least possible delay.
The other matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee is the comparatively low cost of the yeomanry regiment or armoured car company compared with other units, and the efficient service you get from these two arms, and to ask whether it would not be a possible solution, instead of converting your infantry battalions into anti-aircraft services, to amalgamate those of low recruiting strength, and so reduce your divisions, if necessary, but keep them as infantry, and at the same time increase the establishment of your existing yeomanry and armoured car units. Most of the yeomanry cavalry regiments are on a ridiculously low establishment; they are so short of men and horses that it is lucky if they can produce 120 men mounted for any regimental exercise. These establishments should be raised to four good squadrons, and then you would have a unit with which you could do some training when you got them into camp. I apologise to the House for having been so long, but there were various questions which I wanted to bring forward.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: There are two or three questions to which I would like to call the attention of the Financial Secretary. The Estimates are sufficiently varied to allow one an opportunity of ranging over a number of subjects. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is able to tell me something in regard to Woolwich Arsenal. For many years past the question of the future of Woolwich Arsenal has been discussed, but lately it has taken on a much more serious turn. Statements have been made in this House and in the Press as to the possibility of removing the Arsenal or part of the Arsenal, which is the oldest and finest in the world, to some other part of Great Britain. The committee, whoever they are, have been considering the matter for a very long time, and whenever any question has been asked, either by a deputation, or in the House, we have been told that the consideration is the vulnerability of Woolwich Arsenal in the event of war. It is one on which I had hoped to be able
to have some definite pronouncement. The matter has caused the workpeople in the Arsenal grave anxiety as to what is likely to become of the Arsenal. That anxiety is very natural, and I hope that to-night we shall be able to get some definite answer as to what is proposed shall be done. Many of the men who work in the Arsenal have wives and families, who are rooted in the constituency of Woolwich. The careers of their children are mapped out. Any change would mean a good deal of dislocation.
All will admit, I think, that the question of the vulnerability of the Arsenal in the event of war is very relative, particularly in view of the enormous advance which has been made in aviation and of the speed in which different parts of Britain can be covered. Many of the workers in Woolwich Arsenal have purchased their houses. Very largely the Polytechnic at Woolwich has been built up on training men and boys to that particular class of work which fits them so ably and efficiently for the manufacture of munitions. In the event of any statement being forthcoming as to the probability of the Arsenal being moved, I would like to have an assurance from the Government that it is intended to maintain it as a national factory. I think it would be a very great mistake if any attempt were made to transfer the manufacture of munitions to private persons. We had the experience of the clothing stores in Pimlico some time ago, and when they closed down after being under the control of the War Office they were handed out to private enterprise. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to make some statement about the future of the Arsenal in order that the anxieties of the men and their families may be to some extent allayed, and also the anxieties of the commercial people of Woolwich, whose livelihood is bound up with the degree of employment in the neighbourhood.
I have associated myself from time to time with deputations to the Financial Secretary, on behalf not only of the workmen, but of the chambers of commerce and the Woolwich Borough Council. The matter has been agitating the minds of our people for so long and so intensely that I have been pressed by my constituents to ask whether there is anything further to communicate which will at
any rate give them some satisfaction as to what is likely to be done. In the event of any movement taking place, I hope the Government will give us adequate notice. I cannot conceive that the whole of the Arsenal could be moved for a very long time, if it were decided to move any of it at all. There are some very valuable sites on the river where the Arsenal is now situated, and if we had adequate notice in the event of any portion of it being removed, it would be competent for us to try to attract some commercial venture on to the riverside in its place.
I want now to refer to the question of married quarters. I was very happy to see that in the Memorandum that was published, there was a paragraph on page 8 dealing with the modernisation of the older type of married soldiers' quarters, which fall far short of present-day civilian housing standards and of existing barracks. I have raised this question in the House on more than one occasion, as to the degree with which the improvement of the sanitary standards in these married quarters has been proceeded with, and the last time I asked a question on the subject was on the 26th February, when the Financial Secretary replied:
It is the intention to provide separate water-closet accommodation, and eventually separate bathrooms, for all married couples on the married quarters' roll who lire in barracks. This is being done gradually, and these improvements are included in ail new constructions. I could not give the precise number of cases which are outstanding without calling for reports; but I am satisfied that good progress is being made.
I should like to make one short comment on that reply. I am credibly informed that the separate lavatory accommodation—that is, for water closets as apart from bathrooms—is very low indeed, so far as the married quarters are concerned, and it seems to me monstrous that, with the means that we have available to-day, both in material and labour, and knowing that this matter is so far behind, it has not been tackled with greater speed. I am not complaining of the present Financial Secretary, because I believe he takes his duties very seriously and has done everything in his power to make progress in this connection, but the question is of very long standing, and I would beg that in this effort that is being made to deal with ordinary sanitary
arrangements in the married quarters, everything possible should be done to see that progress is achieved.
There is one other point, and that is the question of hutments. The Financial Secretary, also on the 26th February last, in reply to a question by me, said:
Apart from hutments which have been specially reconstructed, there are approximately 12,500 men who axe housed in huts or hutted buildings in stations at home and overseas, excluding India. It is the policy of the War Office to replace these buildings, and more than £700,000 has been expended in the last five years in this connection; but many years must necessarily elapse before all the hutted accommodation can be replaced. I am not aware of any cases of troops living in hutted accommodation which should be condemned as unsuited for habitation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1935; cols. 923–4, Vol. 298.]
I do not want to engage in any sharp practice in discussion, but I see on page 195 a reference to Woolwich and to the reconstruction and re-roofing of married soldiers' quarters, and there is the comment on the other side: "The buildings have become unsafe for habitation." I feel that there has not been a sufficient survey as to the backwardness of the buildings and the sanitary arrangements in order that the Financial Secretary should be able to make the comprehensive statement which I am sure he would like to make, and I would beg in this respect also that the matter should be speeded up.
On the question of workmen's compensation, the Royal Commission recommended very definitely that the Royal Ordnance Factory workmen should be eligible to come into a superannuation scheme. They have from time to time sent deputations to the Financial Secretary, and they have always been willing to make a joint contribution towards providing some means of giving them a retiring allowance when they are no longer eligible to work in the factory. On all occasions we have had a very sympathetic reply, to the effect that there has been no objection to the proposal. It has always been stated that they think the men are right in pressing this claim, but that financial considerations have prevented it from materialising. I wonder how long it will be before financial considerations arise which will make it possible for these people in the Ordnance Factory, not confined entirely to Woolwich,
but including Enfield also, to contribute jointly towards providing a pension for themselves.
I am not skilled in military matters to deal with the other questions that have been raised, but I would like some answer with regard to the future of Woolwich Arsenal, some speeding up with regard to the sanitary arrangements for married quarters and the dilapidated buildings, many of them over 100 years old and hopelessly out of date from the point of view of providing decent accommodation, and I would also like attention given to those who want to make joint arrangements for some contribution towards assisting themselves on retirement.

9.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I think the House will have been very glad to hear the Labour party taking an interest in the housing of the Army. My experience has been very different. When the Labour Minister of War was in office, in answer to a good many questions from me about housing the Army and about the numbers of married quarters, he replied asking me not to press the matter as it was too expensive a job to get the necessary Estimates through. The question of the Army in relation to the Air Force and the Navy has been raised, as it is possible that the anti-aircraft units might some day be under the Air Force. There is, in my opinion, something to be said for it. After the Boer War the artillery was put under the infantry. If that had not proved to be the case and if they had not had the experience of manoeuvring artillery before the Great War, there would have been considerable confusion. I have had experience with the artillery all my life, both as a Regular and as one who is interested in the Territorials, and especially in anti-aircraft, and I am bound to say that the situation of anti-aircraft artillery should be reviewed, with a view to considering whether the Air Force should not take charge of it. I see one great objection. It is the same objection that the Navy has to taking charge of coast artillery. The Navy say it will make too many shore jobs. In this case the Air Force will say it will make too many land jobs, and that it is better for the Army to run the two. I should like to know whether the liaison between the Army and the Air Force is working satisfactorily,
particularly with regard to anti-aircraft units and fighting squadons, because, unless they know each others views, the anti-aircraft units will not be able to enter into an air battle in an efficient way. The question of liaison between the three Services is important and the artillery is really the means by which it can be carried on.
The biggest task with which the War Office is faced is to deal with the question of the shortage of recruits. As far as the Territorials are concerned, there are three reasons for it. The reason given by the Mover of the Amendment is one, but it is not the main reason. One reason is the shortage of equipment. It is difficult to get men interested in anti-aircraft or artillery if they have nothing with which to work. In one instance an important instrument is shared by six batteries. It is hopeless to train in that way, and I am glad that equipment is to be increased. I hope that when the fresh equipment is handed out Territorial officers will be consulted as to the equipment they want with which to interest the men. The second reason is the difficulty with regard to employers. That is mainly a difficulty with Territorial recruiting, but it is also a difficulty with Regular Army recruiting. I suggest that a system should be devised to interest employers. I do not think that it is the task of the War Office, but it may be the task of retired officers who could go round to employers and ascertain their difficulties and get them interested in their local Territorial units. There is no area better for that purpose than London. It is well known how ignorant many employers are that there is a local Territorial unit or that they have any responsibility to it as regards their employés. Some of the big banks and insurance companies have formed units of their own and many other employers have given their help; and I suggest that means might be devised by which ex-Territorial officers should go round to interest other employers in the Territorials.
The third difficulty is one that has scarcely been mentioned. That is the attitude of the Labour party towards recruiting. It is difficult for one who cannot understand their attitude towards recruiting to see how they can hope to safeguard their ideals of freedom and at the same time refuse to let them be defended.
It seems so Gilbertian and their attitude seems to show that they live in a world which is not the present world. I fail to see how democracy can carry on if that attitude is persisted in. I cannot see how, when the world is surrounded as it is by dictatorships, they can say that the City of London, employers and trade unions, should be discouraged from allowing men to join a defence force. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will show a practical way of getting over that difficulty. I am not at all sure whether they are satisfied with the statement that armaments mean war. If that be so, what happens to the policy that is behind rearmament? If the Labour party are really living in the present world, do not let them go in for recriminations and the putting of trade unions and employers against recruiting. Let us get together and preserve our freedom, the freedom of religion and the freedom for which this country has fought, the freedom for which our ancestors and some of us personally have fought. I beg the Labour party to review the situation, and if in my small way I can do anything to help, I shall be only too glad.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: I would like to take up one point which the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) raised, namely, coordination between the Army and the Air Force; but I would first like to congratulate the Financial Secretary upon the eloquence, precision and lucidity with which he propounded the Army Estimates to the House to-day. The occasion of an Estimates Debate affords hon. Members opportunities to voice their particular points of view. Some hon. Members desire big increases in certain items, while others press for marked decreases. These debates often remind one therefore of the couplet of Walter Savage Landor:
Ireland never was contented,
Say you so, you are demented.
The hon. and gallant Member for Louth stressed the point of co-ordination. Tradition assigns to the Territorial Army a large portion of the onerous obligation of defence of these islands. This obligation divides itself naturally into two parts—coast defence and ground defence against aircraft. Science has so
amplified the scope of war that we must, in any future contest, envisage extended operations in the air, on sea and on land. This being the case, co-ordination between the three Services becomes one of the first essentials of training. Since the Territorial Army bears, and will bear, such a large portion in any scheme of national defence, this problem of coordination must be brought to the forefront of its training. I am glad that His Majesty's Government showed themselves alive to this principle at the joint exercises held off the Yorkshire coast last autumn, when opportunity was afforded to try out on an extended scale methods of intercommunication and coordination.
To stress the importance of this factor, let me give an imaginary example. Let us imagine that some hostile Power has decided to attack this island. Surprise will play a large part in any such manoeuvre, and only high efficiency and co-ordination can meet this surprise. Let us imagine, as in the Yorkshire exercises' last September, that a hostile commander under cover of darkness advances his transports, escorted by warships. The night before he has probably sent forward submarines to take bearings of the appointed landing beaches. These, having taken their bearings, sink overnight to the sea floor. At dawn they rise and show hidden lights out to sea. In a few moments transports and lighters, laden with troops of the invading army, are speeding towards their destination. Of these movements the defending commander, in this case perhaps commanding Territorial troops, knows nothing, because the invading commander has probably chosen desolate and unfrequented beaches. From these, by some sharp, decisive, surprise attack he will attempt to take possession of some harbour, because the lessons of modern war teach that an army cannot land such heavy equipment as tanks and ammunition lorries on beaches exposed to the action of the open sea. The defending commander only obtains information of the enemy's movements from his outposts. It was not until 24 hours after the first landing at the Dardanelles that General Lyman von Sanders, the German Generalissimo, decided which were the main attacks and which were the feints. It is, therefore, upon the efficiency and
high degree of co-operation between his observation posts that the defending general must decide on his first movement. When dawn comes he can send up aeroplanes to observe the dispositions of the enemy. There again the question of co-ordination between the land and air forces comes into play.
These factors are of prime importance, and I am glad that His Majesty's Government realised their fundamental necessity by the exercises off the Yorkshire coast last autumn. The same principle applies to an even greater degree in air attack. Let us say that hostile bombing planes have crossed the South Coast. Observation posts, scattered at various intervals and armed with sound-detecting instruments, attempt to gauge the course and position of the raiders. This information they pass on to two branches of the defence, to the ground units, manned by Territorials of the anti-aircraft brigades, and to the interceptor fighters at specific aerodromes under the jurisdiction of the Air Ministry. History records as one of the precepts of the great Napoleon, "I may have lost battles but I have never lost a minute," and in warfare speed is one of the first essentials of success. This news of the approaching raiders is, as I have said, flashed to the ground organisation. The Territorial commander has his groups of searchlights some 2,500 yards apart, behind these again he has his bunches of guns at some 3,500 yards apart. The moment the searchlights find their targets the guns open their barrage.
On the other hand, the Air Force commander has before him on his table a map marked in squares, and has under his command a certain number of fighters each allocated to a particular square. Last summer I had the interesting experience of flying over London in a Virginia night bomber during the exercises, and this fact particularly struck me. Unless the searchlights are able to catch a raiding plane in their beams, an interceptor fighter, however fast and however modern in construction, has little chance of sighting it. Only a hundred to one chance exists of the fighter in the darkness passing sufficiently close to the raider to be able to see the blue flame from its exhausts. Therefore, co-operation between ground and air defence
forms such an important item in the work of these forces.
I saw with interest in the Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State with the Estimates that various officers and organisations of the Territorial Army had been in consultation with high officials from the War Office at Camberley. Since the question of co-operation between the Services is so important, would it be possible for representatives of the Territorial Army to have similar meetings and discussions with highly placed officers both of the Air Force and of the Navy? The late Lord Dewar, in one of his well-known epigrams, said, "America is the place where they try everything once except the criminals." Unfortunately, in war it is the unexpected eventualities which prove the most dangerous. I would, therefore, in closing, press again for extension in the start already made in co-operation between the two fighting services of this country, and I am glad, as I have said, that His Majesty's Government are so alive to this fundamental principle.

10.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: A vote in Supply is a legitimate occasion for raising grievances of a particular Service, and I therefore draw the attention of the Financial Sercretary to the absence of any provision at present for men invalided out of the Service as a consequence of accidental injuries not arising out of their employment. There are 300 or 400 men annually thus invalided out—something like 200 out of India alone—through accidents occurring on shooting furlough or on the football field. Sometimes they are completely disabled, but, because the injury did not arise out of their employment, the men are not entitled to any form of compensation. They come back to be thrown upon public assistance. I have no doubt that the effect upon recruiting is bad. I do not suggest that such cases are properly a charge on Government funds, but I beg the War Office to consider whether a voluntary scheme of insurance to cover accidents of that sort could not be put forward. I believe it would cost something like one halfpenny per head per week to provide for ordinary accidents of that sort, and I believe the introduction of such a system would have a substantial effect upon recruiting.
The Financial Secretary said something about housing and barracks, but I doubt whether what he said sufficed to make the House realise the deplorable state of many of our barracks abroad. May I read a few extracts from the Report on the Health of the Army for 1932. It is certain that nothing has been done since then:
In Egypt, Gibraltar, China and Malta the soldier still suffers from bugs in various barrack rooms. Practically all the barracks in Egypt are infested, the degree of infestation being largely in proportion to the age of the building.
It goes on to say that nothing can be done about it but they are a source of great irritation, particularly to newly arrived young soldiers. I suppose we older men have got used to bugs, but not young soldiers with good blood in their veins. It ought to be impossible for troops to be housed abroad in barracks officially stated to be permanently, incurably infested, with the foulest of all vermin, which, I know from personal experience, men fear far more than the more dangerous and disabling malarial mosquito. The report goes on to deal with water supplies. At Alder-shot it is "still giving rise to anxiety." One supply is contaminated. At another place a feeling of insecurity exists owing again to pollution and absorption of chemical waters containing arsenic from a pit only 400 yards from the main supply. On almost every page "financial stringency" is writ large.
There is great need for further mother and child welfare among the soldiers' wives and children. Dental care, especially in foreign places, lags behind that available in civil life. There has been practically no anti-malarial work done in certain stations owing to financial stringency, with the result that all the good work done in previous years is of no avail. In the absence of an adequate supply of Army dentists the teeth of the troops show no improvement. In India I see that we are spending about 11½d. a head on anti-malarial work as compared with £1 15s. 4d. a head in the Panama Canal zone. The result is that malaria for 1933 is much worse than before, and in spite of many other efforts to improve the health of the Army, malaria remains the principal scourge.
As the position in India develops, it will be increasingly difficult to obtain
funds for work of this sort. We should take every step open to us to improve the condition of the Army abroad in matters of sanitation and general hygiene. It is intolerable that troops should be housed in barracks that were considered fit for Turkish troops 150 years ago, and are now being used without any structural alterations whatever. That is particularly the case in Cairo. There are troops still in huts in Shanghai which ought long ago to have been abandoned in favour of more permanent barracks and in huts amidst foul marshes in Tientsin. Though the Army Medical Service are to be congratulated on the work they have done since the War, much remains to be done. I hope the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) who showed such interest in married quarters in this country will not restrict his interest to them, but will see what is being done abroad.
I turn to a more general matter—the adequacy of these Estimates to our military needs. We heard from the Lord President a few days ago how much smaller the Army is to-day than before the War, and certainly it was inadequate then. I have witnessed, with my own eyes, the agony and misery that fall upon the private soldier when he is made the victim of unpreparedness, the result of the policies adopted in this House. I was the witness of unimaginable human suffering and misery, the inevitable consequence of our unpreparedness in the matter of medical care and equipment in Mesopotamia in 1915. When speaking in this House on the subject of that Debate, Mr. Balfour said:
When this war is over, in a very few years, you will find that what I think the Commission called 'an atmosphere of economy' again creeping over us, and they (the Opposition) will be equally unable to imagine that a new catastrophe will require as great efforts from them and the taxpayers they represent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1917; col. 2265; Vol. 95.]
It is the private soldier as well as the officer who suffers untold misery if the medical and mechanical equipment is not the best we can give. Far better to have a small army which is efficient than a large army which is only partially mechanised and partially provided with essential weapons and services. I would not remind the nation to-day of the sufferings that our soldiers underwent during the War, but it is right to remember that
they were, in large measure, due to a lack of preparedness on our part, the responsibility for which lay with Parliament. I will conclude with a reference in Napier's "History of the Peninsula War" to this responsibility. After describing the agonies and miseries of the troops after Badajos he said—in Book XVI, Chapter VII:
And why was all this striving in blood against insurmountable difficulties? Why were men sent thus to slaughter when the application of a just science would have rendered the operation comparatively easy? Because the English Ministers, so ready to plunge into war, were quite ignorant of its exigencies; because the English people are warlike without being military, and under the pretence of maintaining a liberty which they do not possess, oppose in peace all useful martial establishments. Expatiating in their schools and colleges upon Roman discipline and Roman valour, they are heedless of Roman institutions; they desire, like that ancient republic, to be free at home and conquerors abroad, but start at perfecting their military system as a thing incompatible with a constitution, which they yet suffer to be violated … In the beginning of each war, England has to seek in blood for the knowledge necessary to insure success, and like the fiends progress towards Eden, her conquering course is through chaos followed by death!
Let it not be said of us, of the National Government, that whatever its electoral difficulties, that it was false to its trust to protect not only the nation but those who are prepared voluntarily to fight the nation's battles.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I am envious of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down as I am, indeed, of every hon. and gallant Member in the course of this Debate, because of the assurance with which they have spoken. I thought that they probably would find in discussion this afternoon the same degree of confusion that exists in my own mind, but they are to be congratulated on having been able to bring to bear upon the matter a self-assurance that I do not feel, because I thought that particularly on this occasion it would be extremely difficult to talk upon these Estimates. I find it impossible to divorce the consideration of these Estimates from general considerations of policy. As to whether the Estimate is adequate or not depends entirely upon what it is proposed to do with it. It depends entirely upon the sort of policy you are going to carry
out. Therefore, hon. Members have the advantage of me because they have obviously a policy that is unchanged, and thus the bigger the Estimate the better—no matter what the policy may be, always increase the Army. I have listened to speech after speech to-day devoted exclusively to urging the Government to increase the number of Territorials, to add to the Regular Army, and to lavish more expenditure upon this and that, as though everybody had agreed to the proposition that the Army was too small and quite inefficient and ought to be made bigger, whereas it is just that proposition which has not been established, and which cannot be established until one knows the Government's foreign policy.

Sir A. WILSON: Must we not also know what is the foreign policy of other Governments?

Mr. BEVAN: I make no complaint about that, but the foreign policy of our Government must bear a relationship to the foreign policy of other Governments. The negotiations which are about to proceed between His Majesty's Government and Germany, and which no doubt will be followed by further conversations with France, make it utterly impossible to form a just estimate of whether these Estimates are adequate until we have some idea of what our permanent foreign relationships are to be. I do not propose therefore to speak about the Estimates in relation to our policy. Hon. Members ought to be reticent until they learn what are likely to be the facts of the situation.
I hope that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will not take the advice of the Noble Lord and associate the members of training camps with military establishments. The country will take the strongest exception to young men being compelled to go to training camps—losing their allowances if they refuse—and being lured to training camps, being used for military or semi-military purposes. That is extremely repugnant to the British people. If you want conscription in Great Britain, bring it forward in a straightforward manner and everybody will understand it. I am sure that His Majesty's Government will not be so foolish as to take advice like that. It is one of the dangers of the establishment
of camps of this description that they lend themselves to exploitation, and that is one of the reasons why, when the proposal to establish them was before the House, we opposed them. We knew that, although it might not be the Government's intention to use the camps in that way, their existence nevertheless might lead reactionary minds to suggest means to which they might be put. I do not think that the Government will take any notice of that advice.
I find it difficult to understand the language used by the Financial Secretary. I thought he was proposing to take the advice of the Lord President of the Council and talk quite frankly about these matters, but he talked all the time about our Army being simply a police force, and an inadequate police force at that. If it is merely a police force, why are these proposals before the House? They are not necessary to police the Empire; they are for entirely different purposes. You do not require highly organised tank brigades to police the Empire; you require them for use overseas and for use, as an hon. Member said, if anything more serious and urgent is required.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The hon. Member talks about overseas. Is not the Empire overseas?

Mr. BEVAN: I do not know whether the Financial Secretary desires to have camps in India, or poison gas in India, Jamaica or South Africa. I should have thought that an army so highly mechanised as that was entirely unnecessary as a police force for the Empire. Really, hon. Members ought to cease making statements of that sort. Obviously it is not intended to be a police force for the Empire at all: it is intended to be a part of the general defence forces of the country, and it ought to be examined primarily from the point of view that it may be used, in the language of the Memorandum, for any sudden emergency overseas—and "overseas" does not mean the Empire, but outside the Empire, Really the Government should "vet" their White Papers. The last one was admittedly a disaster, but the one issued by the War Office is almost as bad. I do not know whether, when the Foreign Secretary goes to Berlin, he will go in the character of pointing out one paragraph, in which it is stated that:
In the deliberate judgment of the Government the time has now arrived when action should be taken to bring our military preparations more up to date, and provision is included in these Estimates for expenditure on matériel and for some increase in numbers as an instalment of a programme which will necessarily spread over a series of years.
So the Government expect that their foreign policy will be as unsuccessful in the future as it has been in the past, and they are entering upon these conversations with other countries with their tongues in their cheeks—they do not expect anything to come of it, and are now laying down the basis of a programme which is to be a progressively expanding one. I do not speak as an export on these matters, but, in the present position of our foreign policy, the Army is not half as big as it ought to be; we should want one several times larger, and, therefore, very much more expensive. I suggest to the Lord President of the Council that in future, when these memoranda and White Papers are being issued, they should first of all be handed over to the propaganda chief of the Government, the Postmaster-General, before they are put in the Vote Office, so that he may be able to guard the Government against these verbal indiscretions which are continually creeping into their publications.
The Debate has been so over-shadowed by considerations of general policy that very little useful purpose can be served by extending it at the present time, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone), speaking on behalf of the independent section of the Liberal party, drew the attention of the Financial Secretary to one fact which I should like to emphasise. Indeed, it has been cropping up throughout the whole of this discussion. Hon. Members have argued on the assumption that the Army is frightfully inefficient. They have said also that the Army is small; it is not merely inefficient because it is small, but it is of itself inefficient, and this increase in expenditure is necessary in order to bring it up to a reasonable standard of efficiency. The hon. Member for South Shields pointed out that in 1933 Lord Hailsham stated that the Army was highly efficient and was one of the best mechanised armies in the world at an expenditure of
£38,000,000. The Estimate now involves the expenditure of £43,000,000. Are we having, in less than two years, a more inefficient, unmechanised Army for £43,000,000 than we had for £38,000,000, or are we not getting the truth? Which is the truer of those two statements? Was Lord Hailsam telling an untruth in 1933, or are the Government telling an untruth to-day?
What actually has happened is that the Government are engaged in the most objectionable sort of scaremongering. Everybody who speaks with authority upon these matters knows that the British Army is a highly efficient mechanised Army. It is not carrying out the injunction of the Lord President of the Council to falsify the position in order to frighten the people of this country into doing something. It may be that in some respects the money being spent on the Army is not yielding the best results. I have in my hand a quotation from the "News Chronicle" of a speech made by Field-Marshal Sir Philip Chetwode, Commander-in-Chief in India. He says with regard to officers:
I do not think, as a class, officers have improved in general education or military instinct and leadership since the War. Many officers to-day cannot even express themselves clearly in the simplest language, let alone with any style or distinction. I am horrified at the number I find who have allowed themselves to sink into a state of complete brain slackness.
This is by a gallant Gentleman who, obviously, knows what he speaks about. Being a civilian, I never expected members of His Majesty's Army to rise to the same standard of intelligence as the civilian population, but it is hard lines that a Commander-in-Chief should be able to bring an indictment of this sort against the officers of the British Army. Probably that is the reason why educational expenditure in the Estimates is being increased. I notice that the expenditure is being increased by £79,000. On Vote 4 there is an increase in the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, of officers of companies from 20 to 33, and it is obvious that the Government have taken the strictures of the gallant Gentleman to heart and have increased the number of education officers from 10 to 13. All I hope is that as a consequence of this increased expenditure upon education the officers
of the British Army will be able to show signs of additional intelligence in a few years' time.

Sip A. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take the strictures of Lord Snowden to heart as well?

Mr. BEVAN: If the hon. Member will bring fully to my notice the strictures of Lord Snowden I promise that I will give them meticulous study.
I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to explain an item on page 187 with respect to the cost of gun ammunition. There is an increase from £680,000 last year to £1,767,000. I should like to know whether proper care is taken that we are not paying too much for the ammunition. One notes that the shares of the armament firms have been going up by leaps and bounds on account of the encouragement they have received from the Government, and I hope we are not making too excessive a contribution to that result. I should also like to ask whether there has been excessive expenditure upon barracks at Hong Kong which represents a total amount of £2,220,000. Not a word has been said about that, although it is a very large item of expenditure. We are entitled to have some explanation of it. We have had no inkling from the right hon. Gentleman as to how the money has been spent. There is a further item, on page 204, of £155,400 for adapting defences to modern requirements. I should like some explanation of that.
We should also like to know why it is necessary to spend so much money on military establishments in Egypt. There is a very large estimated expenditure there and at Singapore. There is an increased expenditure of £775,000 at Singapore. I thought there was no need to spend all that money there. Over and over again it has been decided that we were not going to proceed with the defences at Singapore. I admit that the present Government have reversed the policy of the previous Government, but I thought that the Foreign Secretary had established such friendly terms with Japan when he became their advocate at Geneva that it was not necessary to spend so much in the Pacific. We shall go into the Lobby against these Estimates as a protest against the policy which is being carried out by His
Majesty's Government. We realise that had the policy adopted been a more enlightened one not only should we not have been asked to vote for increased Estimates but the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to reduce the Estimates.

10.35 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I do not wish to keep the House for any length of time at this hour, but I should like to say a few words in relation to what my right hon. Friend said when introducing the Estimates on the subject of reorganising the entrants for the Army Medical Corps. This is a question which has perturbed me very much. I have brought it to the notice of the House for the past 15 years ever since I made my maiden speech on it in 1919. From that time I have had very little encouragement and the country has been going down the slippery slope, with the result that the country at the beginning of every war has been left in a wretched and hapless condition and the Army has suffered preventable hardships. This neglect overtook us after the last war in the personnel of medical officers in the Army, Navy and Air Force. The position seemed to be hopeless. Each Secretary of State tried his hand without any effect, and the personnel gradually wont down and down until the position became serious.
In May, 1931, the late Government appointed the Warren-Fisher Committee to inquire into the recruitment of medical officers for the three Defence Services. They had to consider the shortage of officers and nurses in the melical and dental branches of the Services. They took a long time to make their report, which was produced in July, 1933. Last year we were told that this report was under consideration, now we are able to congratulate the Government on having put into force many of their recommendations. Their main recommendation was that as it was almost impossible to get young medical officers to enter these services for life after leaving their hospital training, the proper thing to do was to begin a series of short service commissions for five years, and that at the end of the five years those who had done best should be selected for permanent commissions, and those not selected should be retired with a gratuity of £1,000. That has been
put into force, and the result is that since June of last year 40 new medical' men have been taken into the Army Medical Service, the largest number since the War. That seems satisfactory, but we have to consider the effect on the cadres of the higher ranks.
The difficulty was how to get permanent promotion carried through. The recommendation was to make promotions to the higher branches of the service, and these have been increased to 25 in one case and 21 in another, while special' posts, and the most important, have been increased from 113 to 155. These are matters which give employment in professional work and have attracted men into the Service, but at the same time the total number of men employed is fewer and the actual expenditure reduced. I presume that this has been done by a better distribution of duties. The reduction is considerable. The actual number of men has been reduced from 539 last year to 479 this year. It means a retirement in the senior grades, and so we have a reduction of 69 in the total number of medical officers. That seems to me to be serious, and I hope the Financial Secretary will deal with it in his reply. While congratulating the Financial Secretary on these reforms, may I point out that nothing has been done to implement the recommendation of the committee so far as nurses and dental officers are concerned. I understand that the officers of the dental profession are very seriously perturbed by the fact that their position has not been taken in hand and that their grievances have not been dealt with.
There are one or two other grievances with which I shall deal very shortly. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will pay attention to the fact that the senior officers in the corps who have served well have not been touched by these promotions and changes. They are badly hit and they feel a great injustice. I refer especially to officers of 22 years' service, who do not come under the reforms. The opinion of those who know best is that the short-service commission arrangement is of doubtful value. We shall see how it works out. The senior officers naturally do not like the idea of young officers coming in for five years only, and they are opposed to it. It is significant to note the opinion
in the Air Force, where the same system has been adopted. I understand that in that case there has been such a brilliant entry of young medical officers that when the end of the short period of the commission is reached it will be difficult to choose who is to remain in the Force because all are so good. Those in the Air Force consider that in the Army the same thing will happen. Let us hope that it is so and that we shall get a fine permanent cadre to choose from at the end.
I would like to give my own personal and very strong endorsement of what is proposed to be done to the married quarters. This reform has been required for a long time, and I hope it is only the beginning of a general clear-up right through the garrisons of the Empire. Lastly, I would draw attention to the fact that the Territorial Army medical service has not been considered as yet. Here we have a very serious impairment of strength. If we compare strength with establishment we find that there is a great shortage of something like one-fourth of the establishment, and a shortage still more of units. I have made this point before. A division when it goes to war has three field ambulances for its 12 battalions. That number is cut down in the Territorial Army to one field ambulance. Anyone who knows the organisation of a division knows that one field ambulance goes to a brigade. Therefore in the Territorial organisation you have two of the brigades being trained in peace time without any field ambulance at all. You cannot suddenly create a field ambulance. I hope that there will be at any rate a nucleus of a field ambulance in each brigade of a Territorial division.
My last point relates to another shortage which has had a serious effect. One of the artillery brigades last year had to do its firing under the new arrangements deprived of a medical officer. The rules rightly lay down that no shooting with service ammunition should be allowed without a medical officer being present. The brigade had to scour the country for a civilian to come while they did their shooting. A civilian cannot always be found, and when found is as expensive as to keep on a regimental medical officer. The regimental medical officer had been there but had been turned off because the establishment was cut down. He wished to continue but was not allowed
to continue because of this economy on the part of the War Office. It would seem that in the case of an artillery brigade where they require the special services of a medical officer, they ought to be allowed to have a medical officer. I hope that that particular incident has been brought to the notice of the War Office and that it will receive further attention. On the whole, I think that for the first time some light is being shown in regard to this matter and that an advance is being made in the medical service.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: In replying to a long Debate which has ranged over many subjects I am sure the House at this hour will not desire from me specific answers to every one of the hundreds of questions which have been fired at me. I propose, therefore, only to deal with some of the questions of major importance which have been raised, and I hope that in so doing I shall not offend any other hon. Members, whose suggestions and questions I will certainly reply to by some other method. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and also, I think, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), asked about the Hong Kong barracks for the three British infantry battalions. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred to page 203 and said we were going to spend £2,250,000.

Mr. LAWSON: That is the total.

Mr. HACKING: That is the total of the estimated expenditure, but I do not think the hon. Member realised, or if he did, he might have drawn attention to the fact, that this expenditure is to be in future years and the present Vote is a token Vote of £100. He said that this item was pushed away in a corner and that no attempt had been made to explain it. I do not know whether it is necessary to give a long explanation of a token Vote of £100, but there is in fact a short explanation on the opposite page.

Mr. LAWSON: Two lines.

Mr. HACKING: If we devoted two lines to every £100 in these Estimates—

Mr. ATTLEE: But surely when you are having a new service you must consider the whole plan? This is the inception of a plan for spending £2,250,000, ostensibly
to provide accommodation for three battalions. You are making a beginning this year and we want to know what the scheme can be, which is so costly.

Mr. HACKING: I am aware of the fact that unless there had been some intention in connection with this matter, it would not have been mentioned in the Estimates but I assure the hon. Member that no definite decision has been reached yet and there will be plenty of opportunities of discussing this item when the larger amount appears in the Estimates, as it will have to appear in future years if this question is proceeded with.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Does this mean that we are committed to the expenditure?

Mr. HACKING: The House is not committed to any expenditure by the mere fact that a token vote is put in the Estimates. The most the House is commited to by this Vote is £100 and nothing more than that. That is simply to carry out an investigation.

Mr. ATTLEE: How can the right hon. Gentleman explain an expenditure of £2,250,000 by saying that the Government are providing accommodation for three battalions? That is obviously an insufficient explanation.

Mr. HACKING: I do not think I am called upon to give an explanation of that to-night except to say broadly that at the present moment there is temporary accommodation there, and the idea would be to replace it with permanent accommodation, but no definite decision has been reached, and it may even be that we would not proceed—

Mr. LAWSON: This is rather an important matter. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a guarantee that when the War Office asks in the next Estimate for this £2,250,000 it will be put in such a form as to give the House an opportunity of discussing it and getting a full explanation?

Mr. HACKING: Certainly. When the larger amount of money is involved the House will have an opportunity of seeing it and they will have an opportunity moreover of voting against it, if they think it is a wrong expenditure. The only object of putting this item in these Estimates is simply to draw attention to
this part of our building programme, although it does not necessarily follow that we shall proceed with it. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and other Members suggested that we should spend a larger amount of money on the housing of our troops, especially at home. I agree, absolutely, that we must do something—as I indicated in my original statement—to bring the existing level of housing in the Army nearer to the level which exists in civil life. In fact, I think it ought to be every bit as good as the accommodation we would expect to be enjoyed by civilians living under ordinary conditions in the towns and villages of this country.
Having said that, I must in fairness state that we are spending more in these Estimates than was spent during the time that the Labour Government were in office, in 1930 and 1931, when they prepared their Army Estimates. In the six years between 1928 and 1933 £1,500,000 has been spent on the modernisation of the Army's living accommodation. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street inferred that we were not getting value for the amount of money we are spending. I believe we are as economical in our building costs as any other organisation. But the fact is that we are not spending enough, and special investigations are being carried out at this moment, and have been carried out for some little time past, with the object of carrying out a very great and a more rapid improvement in the accommodation in which our troops have to live. That also applies, of course, to their families.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) asked how we accounted for the increases in Vote 9, as given by me in my speech earlier this afternoon. I said, I think, that £1,500,000 was being spent on coast defences. Then I gave other items, which I think the hon. Member added to that £1,500,000, so making a much bigger total than appears in the Estimates. The fact is that there are other items contained in that £1,500,000 for coastal defences and those items are not additional. Of that £1,500,000, £420,000 is being spent on armaments and the rest is for works, personnel and miscellaneous expenses. Then the hon. Member asked what the remainder of the cost would be, and what proportion the instalment contained in these Estimates would bear to the whole expenditure to
make the Army efficiently up-to-date. I cannot forecast future Estimates, but I do say quite categorically that this is only an instalment; it is not sufficient to put the Army into the condition in which it should be; and in future years, if we have the opportunity of doing so and financial conditions allow, we shall certainly spend much more money than is allocated in these particular Estimates. The hon. Member also referred to the increase in cost, and said we were not getting such good value as we did in pre-War days. That is the same sort of argument that was used by the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) in his speech on the Navy Estimates.

Mr. H. JOHNSTONE: That is on the assumption stated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) that we were now quite incapable of putting even three divisions into an expeditionary force without prolonged delay.

Mr. HACKING: I am coming to that point in a moment, but with regard to the question of extra cost, the pay is up 100 per cent. from what it was in 1914, and the pensions of officers and other ranks are up by 200 per cent. I have got calculations made out as nearly correct as we could get them, and I believe that if the 1914 Estimates were converted to the present-day standards and prices, they would stand at a figure of approximately £48,000,000 to-day, which is a higher figure than the Estimates which we are asking the House to sanction. The hon. Member also asked how many divisions we could send overseas in a given time, and it was here, I think, that he quoted from a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I can only say to him that it is not in the public interest to give such information. Obviously, we cannot go into the details of mobilisation, but I can say this, that at the present moment the process would take longer than was the case in 1914.
The hon. Member, as other hon. Members, quoted a speech from a memorandum prepared by the Secretary of State for War in 1933, but what my right hon. Friend said in that year was, I understand, very qualified and was in relation
to the late Chief of the Imperial General, Staff's tenure of office. This was said in relation to training and military efficiency of that kind, but not as regards equipment and material for coast defence, air defence, and other forms of defence. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) dealt more or less with the same subject and regretted that I had used the words that our force was not efficient. The efficiency of a force does not depend upon men alone. If it did, we should be completely efficient, but it largely depends on equipment of every kind. However excellent our men may be—and they are excellent—their efficiency cannot be complete without proper, up-to-date, modem equipment.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Hicks) and also the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street asked whether any decision had been reached in respect of the removal of the Arsenal from Woolwich. No, a decision has not yet been reached. As the hon. Member knows, the matter has been under very close investigation at the War Office, but no final decision has been reached, and I cannot anticipate that it will be reached for some considerable time yet. I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no sudden dislocation on account of any final decision that may be reached by the Government. The Arsenal is not going to be moved from such a place as Woolwich in a night. It would take a very long period of time, and ample notice would be given so that there need be no such dislocation as the hon. Member fears.
In connection with Woolwich, I was asked about the research department. This department does work for all the three Services, and not for the Army alone. I was asked whether we were in close touch with the General Post Office and other departments in the matter of research and other kindred questions. The reply is that there is close and frequent co-ordination; there is, in fact, an inter-departmental standing committee which is always dealing with all these problems so far as they affect all the services of the State. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) brought up once more the question of ex-ranker officers. I am sure that neither he nor the House would desire me to go into the details of that
question to-night. There was held upstairs two months ago a meeting of the Army Committee at which any hon. Member could have been present, and all the details were gone into then. There was a full discussion of the whole problem. In addition there have been many questions put in the House—

Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that the meeting was not open to the members of the Opposition?

Mr. HACKING: I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds would be considered a member of the Opposition, but, if he is, then it was certainly open to him, because he attended.

Major MILNER: As far as I was concerned, it was a meeting of the Army Committee, and I and representatives of the ex-ranker officers were invited. I was not aware that other Members were invited or that it was possible for them to be present.

Mr. HACKING: I do not know whether there was a general invitation. Probably the hon. and gallant Member is right. Nevertheless, there was a discussion and anybody would have been welcomed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] As far as I am concerned, anyone would have been welcomed.

Major MILNER: May we have another discussion at which we can all be present?

Mr. HACKING: I am now telling the hon. and gallant Member about the discussions that have been held. In addition, many questions have been put across the Floor of the House which I have done my best to answer. The fact is that the ex-ranker officers have never claimed that they have any legal right to the pension that has been obtained by officers who have held commissions. I am sorry I cannot hold out any hopes for still another committee of investigation which the hon. and gallant Member suggested should be set up. Surely the consideration has been full and complete. This question has been debated three times in the House of Commons. It was referred to a committee to which reference was made by the hon. and gallant Member. It has been considered by successive Governments—Conservative, Labour,
Coalition and National—and it has been investigated by every Financial Secretary and by every Secretary of State for War of every political complexion every year since 1920. The claims have been turned down on every occasion without even an expression of doubt—

Major MILNER: I cannot agree for one moment with that.

Mr. HACKING: That is the statement I have made, and the statement to which I adhere.

Major MILNER: The Labour Government of 1931 never turned it down.

Mr. HACKING: I said that this question has been brought to the notice of every Government. It may be that it has only been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, but he is a Member of the Cabinet with responsibility, but on every occasion it has been turned down. I would like to ask the House: Is no decision to be considered to be final? It is quite impossible to open up this question in every Parliament for ever, and I do hope it will not be pressed on this Parliament, because I think it is a little unfair any longer to hold out hope to these men. I believe the money which is being spent on propaganda and in other ways to keep this matter alive would be better spent in the interests of the ex-ranker officers themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. North) regretted that only £5,000,000 is being spent on what he described as the irregular army, namely, the Territorial Army. He obtained his figures from page 66 of the Estimates, Vote 2. If he will look at that page again he will find that only £3,000,000 is being spent on the Territorial Army. He arrived at his figure by adding the figures of the Army Reserve and the Supplemental Reserve to the figures of the Territorial Army, and, as he knows, the Army Reserve is a branch of the regular Army. If he will turn to page 65 of the Estimates he will see that the total effective cost of the Territorial Army in 1935 is £4,250,000, this including the issues from Army stocks. I know from his speech that he would call this a small proportion of the total Army expenditure of £43,500,000, but I think he ought to deduct from that total £8,500,000 for non-effective services such as pensions, retired
pay and similar charges; so the proportion would not be £4,250,000 to £43,500,000, but £4,250,000 to £35,000,000. That does make the position better, possibly, than he imagined. Then he put forward several suggestions which he prefaced with the remark that they would cost nothing and hoped they would be favourably received. I can assure him we will always welcome any proposals which will not add to our financial burdens.
The hon. Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) asked me several questions. He asked whether the new machine gun to replace the Lewis gun was a machine gun or an automatic rifle. The answer is that the light machine gun which is to replace the Lewis gun is definitely a machine gun and not an automatic rifle. He spoke of the heavy cost of the tank battalions and said the Japanese were not placing great faith in this weapon. At the present time there are only five tank battalions. Four of them, that is one light battalionand three medium battalions, constitute a tank brigade, which must be regarded as part of the mobile troops of any field force. The remaining battalion, at Catterick, has been reorganised on a provisional basis as an Army tank battalion intended for close co-operation with infantry divisions. In spite of the Japanese experience and after very careful consideration it has been decided by the Army Council that for modern warfare Army tank battalions should be provided on the scale of one battalion per infantry division. He then spoke of the tank battalions in India. I am informed that there are not eight light tank battalions but eight armoured car companies, which will probably in due course be converted on to a light tank basis. I can only say that I have no doubt that the Government of India have thoroughly investigated the necessity for this number of armoured units, and it would be out of place for me to comment on that.
With regard to the Third Hussars, at the present time we possess one cavalry division and one independent tank brigade. The cavalry division as at present organised on a horse basis is unsuitable, owing to lack of speed and range, for co-operation with the tank brigade. Consideration is being given to the practicability of the formation of
a mobile division combining armoured car units, a brigade of cavalry, a tank brigade and mechanised supporting arms and services. Such a force would be capable of a wide range of action.

Lord APSLEY: Would it be a strategical and reconnaissance force?

Mr. HACKING: I think that I must have notice of a technical question like that. I will certainly let my hon. Friend know that in the course of a day or so. It is intended this year to carry out the trials with one squadron and one scout troop of the Third Hussars temporarily organised on a mechanised basis. Light cars will be provided for reconnaissance work. I would merely like to emphasise the fact that this is purely an experiment, and that the Third Hussars have volunteered to take part in that experiment. Until it has been tested, we are not in a position to say whether the proposal is one that could be carried out permanently. With regard to the autogyro, in conjunction with the Air Ministry experiments have been carried out with aeroplanes of the autogyro type. These experiments will be continued during the present year and the Army Council feel that there may be a future for these machines in connection with intercommunication and especially with regard to observation.
May I say that I was sorry I was not present when the hon. Member for Woolwich made his speech? It was the first time that I had left the House for several hours. I am sorry that I was not here, because I understand that he paid me something that was very rare, and that was a compliment for the way in which I was attending to my duties at the War Office. His main concern was in regard to Woolwich Arsenal. I have already replied to the questions he asked. He asked also whether it was the intention to continue with a national factory. I think that I can safely say that there is no present intention to part from the retention of the Government control of the factory in so far as the munitions which are at present manufactured at Woolwich are concerned. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale expressed the hope that we were not paying too much for our gun ammunition. If it be any consolation for him to know I would tell him that practically all this gun ammunition will be made at the Government factory
at Woolwich. Such being the case, I think that he will agree that it would be quite impossible for us to be overcharged. He asked also why there were more instructors employed at the Military Academy. The answer is a quite simple one: there are more cadets.
I know that I have not covered a great many questions that have been asked. I have covered many of the main subjects which have been raised in the Debate, and I am sure that the House has had enough of the Army Estimates for one day. Before I sit down, may I repeat that the OFFICIAL REPORT will be read

very thoroughly at the War Office during the next few days? Answers will be sent to hon. Members where necessary, and the advice, so freely given during the Debate and so valuable to the War Office, will be given the most careful consideration. I hope, in your interests, Mr. Speaker, as well as in mine, that the House will now give you permission to leave the Chair.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 55.

Division No. 108.]
AYES.
[11.17 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loftus, Pierce C.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Albery, Irving James
Dickie, John P.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Doran, Edward
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Apsley Lord
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Assheton, Ralph
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eastwood, John Francis
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Balniel, Lord
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Magnay, Thomas


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fermoy, Lord
Margsston, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Martin, Thomas B.


Bateman, A. L.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Blindell, James
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitcheson, G. G.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Goldie, Noel B.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Bracken, Brendan
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Greene, William P. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, William Shepherd


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Munro, Patrick


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wllfrid


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
North, Edward T.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nunn, William


Buchan, John
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Connor, Terence James


Burghley, Lord
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslle
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hornby, Frank
Palmer, Francis Noel


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peake, Osbert


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Howard, Tom Forrest
Pearson, William G.


Carver, Major William H.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Christle, James Archibald
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jamleson, Douglas
Potter, John


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cook, Thomas A.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Remer, John R.


Copeland, Ida
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ropner, Colonel L.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Leckle, J. A.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sandys, Edwin Duncan


Cross, R. H.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Selley, Harry R.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tree, Ronald
Wise, Alfred R.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Stones, James
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.



Storey, Samuel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Irens Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Sir George Penny and Sir Walter Womersley.


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banfield, John William
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Alien


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Sir Percy
Rea, Walter Russell


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Rothschild, James A. de


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Buchanan, George
John, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cape, Thomas
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cleary, J. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
West, F. R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 152,200, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden),

during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That a number not exceeding 149,200, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 206.

Division No. 109.]
AYES.
11.29 p.m.]


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Buchanan, George
John, William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cleary, J. J.
Kirkwood, David
West, F. R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, David L, (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Wilmot, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert



Davies, Stephen Owen
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Balniel, Lord
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Albery, Irving James
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Brass, Captain Sir William


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Apsley, Lord
Bateman, A. L.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Aske, Sir Robert William
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Assheton, Ralph
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Blindell, James
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Bossom, A. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Buchan, John
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Connor, Terence James


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hornby, Frank
Peake, Osbert


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pearson, William G.


Carver, Major William H.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Thelma (lslington, E.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Christie, James Archibald
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Potter, John


Clarry, Reginald George
Jamleson, Douglas
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cook, Thomas A.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Remer, John R.


Copeland, Ida
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cranborne, Viscount
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ross, Ronald D.


Craven-Ellis, William
Leckle, J. A.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Cross, R. H.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sandys, Edwin Duncan


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Selley, Harry R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dickie, John p.
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Doran, Edward
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Eastwood, John Francis
Mabane, William
Stones, James


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Strauss, Edward A.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
MacAndrsw, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sutcliffe, Harold


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Magnay, Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B-wick-on-T.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tree, Ronald


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitcheson, G. G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Adrian C.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Goldie, Noel B.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Greene, William P. C.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Grimston, R. V.
Munro, Patrick
Wise, Alfred R.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)



Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
North, Edward T.
Sir George Penny and Sir Walter Womersley.


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Nunn, William



Resolution agreed to.

PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,779,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,730,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, including military and civilian staff and other
charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £977,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1936.

HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY AND OTHER NON EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.

Resolved,
That a gum, not exceeding £3,558,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

PENSIONS AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARKANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN AND OTHERS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,510,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Noncommissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION AND GRATUITIES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £215,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — REGIMENTAL CHARITABLE FUNDS [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the disposition of certain regimental charitable funds, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(1) of such part (if any) of the sums required for paying the amounts standing to the credit of the regimental charitable funds mentioned in the said Act to the holding trustee therein referred to, as is not provided out of the proceeds of the sale of investments held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the fund for the military savings banks; and
(2) of such fee to the said holding trustee in respect of the acceptance of the payment made to him as aforesaid on account of any of the said regimental charitable funds as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine."

Orders of the Day — REGIMENTAL CHARITABLE FUNDS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer of funds to holding Trustees.)

11.41 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, after the word "four," to insert "and Section six."

This is a privileged Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HACKING: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to insert:
(2) Any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make any payment under the foregoing Sub-section shall, if and in so far as they are not provided out of the proceeds of the sale of investments held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Fund for the Military Savings Banks, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament,
This again is a privileged Amendment. The object is to bring the Bill into accord with the Financial Resolution.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 2, line 5, insert:
(3) Upon making any payment under Sub-section (1) of this Section, the Secretary of State may pay to the holding trustee, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such fee in respect of the acceptance of the payment under that Sub-section as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine."—[Mr. Hacking.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill,

CLAUSE 2.—(Application of funds.)

11.43 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, after "unit," to insert:
or where a commanding officer so desires to the regimental association of that regiment.
I wish these words to be inserted because I do not know what happens to a fund in certain circumstances. Suppose that there is no commanding officer and no unit. Suppose that some of the certified regiments on the list have been altered or disbanded. I know of one instance in the cavalry, where a regiment has been
converted into a machine gun corps, though the association goes on. The men of the corps are there, with their wives and their children, and the fund is carried on by the association. It could not be carried on by the commanding officer of the unit in such a case. In nearly every regiment included under the United Services Trustees the commanding officer of the regiment is a member of the association and probably the most influential member. The associations merely keep in touch with the regiment and spend money on charitable objects, in which work the commanding officer has the chief hand. It seems to me that it would be as well to recognise that practically every regiment has now its regimental association and in case the regiment cannot deal with it, most commanding officers would like to have this fund dealt with by the regimental association. I move this Amendment in order to give an opportunity to my right hon. Friend for a statement on that point.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for having given me notice that he was going to move this Amendment. I do not think he need be anxious in connection with any one of these 35 units in question. I believe none of them has been disbanded.

Brigadier-General BROWN: They may be.

Mr. HACKING: In any event at the present moment I am advised the Secretary of State is bound to see that the money gets to the regiment and if it gets to the regiment, it must go to the commanding officer. I am further informed that this Clause as drafted would enable
the commanding officer to call in any regimental association and get the assistance of that association if it is desired that it should so assist. Therefore, I think the Amendment is unnecessary. It would merely call attention to what is already possible under the terms of the Bill.

Brigadier-General BROWN: In calling in a regimental association, can the commanding officer place the account with the regimental association and make them responsible for accounting to the War Office for it?

Mr. HACKING: Up to a point. The position is that responsibility must be with the commanding officer. The commanding officer, if he accepts responsibility, can do as he likes but the responsibility must remain with him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eleven Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.